Top Stories

People Magazine: NY Times is Bogus

People Magazine: NY Times is Bogus

Larry Hackett, managing editor for People magazine, just sent this email to staffers to address the recent NYTimes piece titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”:

“I don’t normally address press stories about how we do our business here at People. But today’s New York Times pg. 1 story about Angelina Jolie requires a response. In the lede, the story strongly suggests that People, while negotiating for the twins pictures, had explicit conversations about our “editorial plan” and made ‘a promise’ that coverage would be positive.

“These sorts of stories have appeared in media gossip columns before. I have ignored them in the past as the unfortunate fallout of competition and sour grapes. But today’s story, in a much different venue, takes these rumors to a new level, so let me be absolutely clear: The suggestion that we have ever made any promise of positive coverage, or have submitted an editorial plan, is completely false. That I or anyone else would promise, on paper or verbally, to purposely slant coverage as condition for acquiring pictures, is insulting to all of us.

“Here’s what is true: Celebrities-and senators and business executives and athletes-are always trying to bend stories their way. We deal with that pressure every single day and engage in many conversations regarding all elements of coverage. Angelina Jolie is very candid about wanting attention for her charitable efforts, and we have covered many of them because we believe they are interesting stories. But in doing so, we have never relinquished editorial control. There have been occasions when her goals and our needs could not be reconciled, and we have walked away, as we have with countless other story subjects.

“In our coverage of both celebrities and everyday people, People certainly often celebrates their accomplishments and milestones. To say that our coverage of Angelina Jolie has not been admiring would be disingenuous. But the suggestion in today’s Times that this ‘positive’ coverage is codified and promised is totally bogus, and needs to be rejected.”

Like Just Jared on Facebook

JJ Links Around The Web

Frazer Harrison/Getty

962 Comments

# 2

SHE’S SO PRETTY “! :D

# 3

Who cares either way.

Oh… *waits for gazillion posts claiming otherwise*

# 4

I’m glad People decided to answer the NYT.

# 5

who gives a crap?

# 6
dialectic @ 11/21/2008 at 5:13 pm

yeah because i would totally believe people magazine of the NY times

# 7

Ny Times has been sinking for a while now.

They gave the 14 mil$ to CHARITY. duh.
Angie has been a UNCHR ambassador for 8 yrs.

NY Times is desperado & liars.

# 8
BECKY SMITH @ 11/21/2008 at 5:22 pm

She should of given the 16 million dollars to the Africian relief and built
them some home to go back to instead she sits in a filthy tent in her
black hooded wrap and talks about how they need help… What charity
the Jolie-Pitt foundation aka for the kids.. and their lavish lifestyle?

Duh tell us what charity is was.. so what if she was an ambassador
for the UNCHR.. she has done squat for them..Just her videos…
put her money to good use…

# 9

Two words:

Judith. Miller. NYT

A reporter most singlehandedly responsible for spreading the neo-con LIES in the Iraq War, killing 1.6 milloon, wounding half million, and killing 5000 U.S. military.

This is proven FACT.

Between her, and Jason Blair – this paper has been sh*t for a looooong time.

a total fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:24 pm

Finally ! I always knew she used her status to bring awarness to her charities, but I never believed she used it to put herself in a “positive” light. She can careless about what people think about her,she is too busy with her family and just living life.

nothing new, the media keeping repeating the samething and it is getting boring, let her live her life.

The NY Times need to get a grip! Do they just need to pick on somebody? Why don’t they write about more relevant things and news worthy topics? The fact that Ms. Jolie have done more good that most if not all hollywood stars is worth mentioning. I am tired of the media almost printing lies and bad news. The way the economy and the world is heading to these days, bad publicity and dire news only fans the fire and achieves nothing but build more hostility, anger, mistrust and sadness among humankind.

This is NOT a NEW thread @ 11/21/2008 at 5:25 pm

..and NO, this is still NOT a new thread. Keep posting in Brad/Oprah.

That is all.

Angelina is a talented Actress, devoted Mom and Humanitarian. The media is obsessed with her and is making her an iconic legend of our generation. Whether you like her or not, the main thing is that people(mainly hens) cannot ignore her. She has been lied on, smeared on and her past brought up in many articles. Yet AJ continues to live her life and love her family. She seems to have it all and this bothers many. I admire her intelligence, talent, strength and conviction to her causes. All the tabloid BS, PR manufactured triangle and ranting from crazed nutjobs are just a minor inconvenience in reading about a woman who walks the talk. Keep on Keeping on Angelina Jolie. It is always good to leave the haters in the dust.

HAAAAAA……HA! (As bart simpson would say).

Kudos to PEOPLE for putting this hack in his place and in doing so, throw light on the trashloid-little secret that the NYT harbors within its ‘hallowed’ pages.

Journallism is no longer about strict lines of demarcation between ‘news’ and the opinions and commentary of the so-called writers who are no longer content just to report the facts. Everybody wants their 15 minutes. Everybody wants to give his or her spin on things and in the process, foul up the facts, as this so-called ‘writer’ of the piss poor hatchet job on Angie tried to do. (A page one article???!! i know media is feeling the economic downturn pretty hard but……man! i guess its worse than i thought LOL.

Anyhoo……seems to me the next step is to point the spotlight on this so-called ‘writer’. When writers insert themselves and their biases so blatantly into stories, its time to find out who they are, who ‘pays’ them and what their real agenda is!!!!

NYTimes has a lot of contributing writers. This one, Brooks Barns, again, probably is one of the women whose partner left her, or had an experience of a failed relationship which she never accounted herself for. Angelina’s critics are often themselves very insecure women who are extremely threatened by Angelina’s self-assured, honest life style. They can’t take it.

Everyone wants a piece of Angie.

I was waiting for this site to make a post in her defense…

BECKY SMITH @ 11/21/2008 at 5:33 pm

I’m just kidding Angelina Jolie is the MOST ADMIRED PHILANTHROPIST ON THE PLANET, SECOND sandwiched between Bono & Oprah.

I mean, here we are arguing about how and in which way she can donate her millions to the poor, and actually discussing what she’s wearing when she’s sitting in war-torn dangerous area bringing attention to suffering refugees…I was just kidding talking about her black outerwear – those are clothes she had to wear to respect customs.

I mean, you guys know I’m kidding right??

Why would I be so critical of a woman doing so much for others?

It’s not like she’s Jennifer Aniston getting mani-pedis, and living with her colorist and hair stylist, or getting brazillians for her weekly beach shots. Now THAT is something to be critical of. She could spend her 100 million on someone other than her fake asss’d self, but she doesn’t – she chases obnoxious boytoys around the world and snaps photos offstage. Wow, what a role model. If the NYT says Angelina is ‘scary smart,’ she must ‘horrifingly DUMB.’ Hahaha.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7739707.stm

Emotional Jolie takes no prisoners

By Liam Allen
Entertainment reporter, BBC News

Angelina Jolie in Changeling – clip courtesy of Universal Pictures.

The excitement in the room is palpable.

The buzz, which manifests itself as lively chatter, is not one usually associated with experienced and sometimes cynical journalists.

And with the star of the show apparently running late, all eyes turn to the door each time it opens – only to be disappointed by the sight of late colleagues rather than a late Angelina Jolie.

The 33-year-old is in London to promote new film Changeling – the harrowing true story of Christine Collins whose son, Walter, went missing in Los Angeles in 1928.

When the press conference – at the swanky Claridge’s hotel – eventually begins, Jolie explains that “the hardest thing” about playing Collins was that the character is relatively passive.

As a mum, it was horrible and I had my kids with me as much as possible at work and, after doing the day at work, I would just run home and I just wanted to be silly
Angelina Jolie on Changeling

Jolie’s tears for her late mother

“I couldn’t relate to it,” says Jolie, suggesting her reputation as a tough cookie is not too wide of the mark.

But within seconds, Jolie – looking stunning in a plain dark olive green jumper – is fighting back tears.

And the journalists have their story.

She pauses to compose herself as she explains how she based her performance on her “really, really sweet” actress mother, Marcheline Bertrand – who died last year.

It is this softer, emotional side of Jolie that pervades the rest of the press conference as she talks affectionately about her family.

‘Very goofy’

Jolie says Changeling, directed by Clint Eastwood, was “a very hard film for all of us to make”.

Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins
Jolie is being tipped for a best actress Oscar for Changeling

The movie, which is being tipped for best picture and best actress Oscars, tells the story of Collins’s fight for the truth after police officers return a different child to her, claiming it is her son.

When she tries to force them to admit they have the wrong boy and to resume the search, she is thrown into a psychiatric ward.

“As a mum, it was horrible and I had my kids with me as much as possible at work and, after doing the day at work, I would just run home and I just wanted to be silly.

“It was so emotional that I found myself just being very, very goofy.”

She says her four-month old twins, Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon, are “upstairs – hopefully sleeping”.

‘Wrapping presents’

Asked if she and the other half of Hollywood’s most famous couple, Brad Pitt, plan to expand their family – which already numbers six children – Jolie replies: “Sure you can.”
Jolie and Pitt with children Zahara and Maddox
Jolie says she and Pitt are looking forward to “doing the stockings”

A big family Christmas is planned in the “Brangelina” household, she says.

“We’re usually exhausted by Christmas Eve.

“We love it – it’s that fun of sitting up in the middle of the night and wrapping the presents together and doing the stockings and all that kind of stuff.

“It’s kind of the best thing about being a mom and dad.”

Such is the graceful emotion exuded by Jolie that, when a journalist asks how she is feeling in herself after the recent “extremes” of losing her mother and giving birth to twins, she actually thanks him for asking.

But anyone who thinks she has lost her edge should think again.

Jolie with her best actress Oscar in 2000
Jolie won the best supporting actress Oscar for Girl, Interrupted in 2000

The same press man’s follow-up question is met with an icy stare.

“There was a lot of focus on how thin you looked during the shooting of the film and in the film. I just wondered if you’re healthier now?” he asks.

“I think that’s an odd question,” she replies simply.

As the press conference goes on, it can only be a matter of time before someone asks Jolie the killer question – how does she respond to Jennifer Aniston’s claims that she romanced Pitt while he was still married to the Friends actress?

Whoever asks it may well get the cold shoulder from an actress who clearly takes no prisoners.

But the chance of taking the prize of a headline-grabbing retort back to editors is surely too good to miss. Isn’t it?

No-one dares ask.

Glad that this was finally said. The NY Times is struggling to keep their paper afloat. They have create drama to get readership. Sad but so true. Brooks Barnes is an idiot but the worst culprits are the editors that let her piece of garbage article run on the first page.

Reporter using AJ to make name @ 11/21/2008 at 5:36 pm

Brooks Barnes is a guy who looks frighteningly like Clay Aiken, only a LOT less macho. lmao

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/gbye-laura-holson-hello-brooks-barnes-meet-nyts-new-movie-biz-reporter/

well if the “good coverage” exsist .. shouldnt it be part of the deal that pepople HAS TO response to such stories Just saying

Thank you Jared.

God Bless the Jolie-Pitt’s always and forever .

How dare Angelina try to bring the focus to her charity? Seriously, the NYT is upset because she cares about her image as if that is different from any other celeb. She has been uncharacteristically honest in her interviews and still some in the media try to negate every good thing that she has done. The fact that article talked about her humanitarian efforts as a way to smooth over her relationship with Brad is beyond ridiculous because she was involved in those causes before meeting Brad. So, one has to wonder if the author had something to gain by his misleading article and it would be interesting to know who his sources are and WHO they are connected to…

(((((((CLAPING))))))))))

should read “clapping”

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/3867230.Tough_love/

Angelina Jolie almost turned down her latest film role because the subject – the kidnapping of a child and a woman’s betrayal – was too painful for her as a mother. But, as she tells Steve Pratt, she became fascinated by the story.

BEING a mother, Angelina Jolie found her latest screen role – playing a woman whose nine-year-old son goes missing – one of the toughest of her career.

Shooting the scene when she reports the child’s absence was the most difficult in the movie. “It’s such a serious fear, especially for any parent, that you just don’t want to physically do it,” she explains. “You don’t want to go up to a phone, pick it up and report a missing child. It’s horrible. So that was hard to do.”

The latest addition to Jolie’s own ever-growing family, twins Knox and Vivienne, are upstairs – “hopefully asleep” – while their mother talks about the Clint Eastwood-directed movie, Changeling, downstairs at London’s Claridges hotel.

She doesn’t say if her other half, actor Brad Pitt, is babysitting but, unlike other Hollywood A-listers, hasn’t sent advance word that personal questions will not be tolerated. If she thinks someone is overstepping the mark, she’s quite capable of dealing with it. How’s your health, someone asks, mentioning comments about how thin she looks in the movie.

“I don’t think that’s a question,” she says calmly, putting the lid on further inquiries of that nature. But she’s happy to talk about the family that she and Pitt have. In addition to the twins, there are two-yearold Shiloh and three adoptive children, Maddox, Pax and Zahara.

That’s unlikely to be the end of it. Can we expect to see her family expanding further? “I’m sure you can,”

she smiles.

******Jolie has never been one to hide behind a publicist, perhaps being too honest for her own good. Interviews don’t only mention her work as a UN ambassador, but dredge up old quotes about her sex, drugs and rock’n’roll past. ***********

She’s dressed in grey top and trousers with black boots. Her make-up is restrained and subtle, as befits the serious film about which she’s talking. Changeling is based on the true story of Christine Collins whose son went missing in 1928. Five months later the police returned a boy to her – that she knew wasn’t her son. The corrupt police department was hoping for good publicity by reuniting mother and son.

luvangie4ever @ 11/21/2008 at 5:46 pm

I knew the NYT article was distorted to cast a bad light on Angie but all the same, I appreciate Larry Hackett for addressing the obvious slander.

I think most actors try to use their influence to get positive publicity. Angelina Jolie is just more manipulative than most.

Angie should sue NYT and get some more millions to the charity.

Thanks for all articles bdj.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 5:50 pm

LOL! Good for Larry Hackett. This is shaping up into a People vs. New York Times pissing contest!

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684

The New York Times has a cleverly timed piece up today by Brook Barnes which accuses Angelina Jolie of brokering a deal with People Magazine that would control how they cover her, Pitt and their family now and in the future:

According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.

People denies it:

Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. “These claims are categorically false,” the statement said. “Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties.”

The article continues to show Jolie manipulates the press in order to draw more attention to her charity work, which is admirable.

The thing the NY Times neglects to mention, and what will probably never be talked about in the future when they talk about the stuff around A Mighty Heart is that the press at large, for the most part, focuses almost entirely on the silly and ongoing story of the love triangle. It never ends. Not only that but take a look at all of the tabloids on any given day — what kind of nonsense do they put on their covers day in and day out. But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board. When I do any post about Angelina the traffic spikes. Even on my level I notice it; I can’t imagine what the big magazines make off of her. They make money off of mostly fictional stories, sometimes complete lies, on a continual basis. That leads me to conclude that Jolie treats the press the way they deserve to be treated. This is not a woman who doesn’t respect the institution of journalism; this is a woman who is smart enough to see how it has devolved into a corporate-owned mess.

She pissed off a lot of journalists during A Mighty Heart by attempting to filter how they interview her. She routinely, as do other celebrities, requests that no personal questions be asked and that if the questions are asked she won’t answer them. This frustrates her fans because all they want to know about is the personal stuff. Jolie wants people to see what she wants them to see. She has transformed herself from exhibitionist wild child to humanitarian and mother. She’s done a good job and it hasn’t been all press manipulation. Her past drags behind her like a piece of toilet paper and there isn’t much she can do about it. She is an icon, for better or worse, and to many she will always be the girl who stole Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston or Billy Bob Thornton from Laura Dern.

How does a negative article in the NY Times impact Jolie’s image, especially in terms of earning a “You Like Me” Oscar nomination? Maybe that depends on how the public views the victimized press. If people feel as I do that the mainstream has mostly let the readers down in its continual coverage of stuff that doesn’t really matter, well, maybe they won’t care that much that Jolie has no regard for journalism. But if there is a whiff of a “diva” in the air it may linger for a while.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684

1. Ryan Adams November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am 1

“But it isn’t just the tabs. The mainstream press are all over the story too. I finally figured out why: any news about Angelina but especially the private stuff draws big numbers across the board.”

So true, Sasha. The New York Times puts this piece in their Business section, and with all the economic turmoil and financial meltdown in the news, it’s the 2nd most emailed “Business” story at the NYTimes today. They feature it above the virtual fold on the main page if the Times website. They open it to comments (73 responses, so far) — the only business article I can find on the site that’s given the open forum feedback treatment.

That’s why the Times piece seems a little self-serving and disingenuous to me. “oh look! Press manipulator! Please read our story revealing how Angelina is all about the publicity!”

It makes me respect her even more. The main stream media are vultures when it comes to certain people and sensationalist subjects. Anyone who can figure out how to effectively prevent themselves from being repeatedly victimized by the press earns my respect.

In tangentially related news: Jennifer Aniston attempts to control her publicity too today, albeit on what seems to me a much more petty level:

Jennifer Aniston Begs Fans Not To Sell Their Photos Of Her

So Angelina tries to manage her image when even the NYTimes is gossiping about her on its business page. And she does it in a way to bring attention to charitable causes. While Jennifer Aniston bristles at somebody selling a cell-phone photo so “they can dine out on me.”

Not that different on a basic privacy level, but who’s attempting to finesse the press with the most class? And who has the most noble motivation?

So where’s the NYTimes Business article about Jeniffer Aniston whining about fan snapshots?

biggest manipulative @ 11/21/2008 at 5:55 pm

She is one of the biggest manipulative media whores ever in this industry.

All Editors’ Selections » EDITORS’ SELECTIONS (what’s this?)
November 21, 2008 9:10 am

Link
As a PR professional, I find Ms. Jolie more adept at messaging and consistent use of talking points than many who have been in our industry for years. Should she decide to leave the motion picture industry, she’d surely be in high demand as the head of her own agency. Other public figures would do well to study the way she has developed her philanthropy and image – she is a total professional.

Marsha Keeffer

— Marsha, Santa Cruz, CA

teamangelina77 @ 11/21/2008 at 5:56 pm

It’s interesting that the NYT chose to trash Angelina on its front page just a few days before featuring her rival Jennifer Aniston on the cover of their Sunday magazine. Smells funny to me.

The sad thing is, The kids were born in July of ’08, all theother incidents referenced (July of ’06 Shi’s birth), (Angie’s Divorce and Adoption of Maddox (2002), a spread about Cambodian refugees (also 7 years ago?) — so what made the new nyt showbiz guy (based in LA, the clay Aiken lookalike) write this story NOW? At this juncture?

The great news that Angelina has delivered – be it a critically acclaimed performance, 2 million to Iraqi children and US military children, the establishment of KIND (a nationwide network of lawyers set up to aid fleeing refugee minor children in dire circumstances), I could go on and on and on…about great things this guy could have written about – yet he decides to reach back as long as 8 years ago, and pull this out of his asss, making Angelina seem smarter than 99.999% of the rest of Hollywood in the process, while at the same time getting in his digs.

The piece was all over the place. I couldn’t figure out if it was a slam, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to drop their high powered agents, or if he’s telling the rest of HW to keep their high powered agents because they’ll never be AS SMART as Angelina. LOLOL

Whatever, he’s a wuss and a tool. Glad he’s getting smacked.

Only hens would find someone that takes control of her life and image in Hollywierd a bad thing. Meanwhile, Whiny(X) is a pawn and big purse to her Super PR guy, CAA Agent, hair stylist, Plastic Surgeon, Doggy Therapist, boy toy, Echo as in no deals ProductionCompany, goddess Circle and spray on tan. Those the breaks.

Angelina looks beautiful.

http://media.www.thesandspur.org/media/storage/paper623/news/2008/11/21/ArtsEntertainment/Mistress.Of.Melancholy.Jolie.Delivers.Captivating.Performance.In.Changeling-3555680.shtml
Changeling

This movie is by far one of the best movies of the year, and it would not surprise me to see this movie nominated for several Academy Awards. However, while this movie is very well done, it is also very disturbing, and leaves the audience with an uneasy feeling about the lives of Christine and Walter. What makes this movie even more disturbing is that it is based on a true story: exposing a side of our police force and people that society hoped never to see. I found myself becoming angry and upset with the circumstances of the movie, and while I do recommend this movie, I warn viewers that it is a very intense film that calls for the proper mindset.

The acting in the movie was impeccable from major actors such as Angelina Jolie, Michael Kelly, John Malkovich and Jeffrey Donovan. The costumes, setting and props were very appropriate for the period and stylized for the 1920′s. I think everyone should see this movie. It opens eyes to ideas of corruption, redemption and the human character in general. It explores every type of human, from the normal and competent to the crazed and wild. It is probably the best movie in theatres now and one of the best we will see all year. Jolie gives the performance of a lifetime and is reminiscent at moments of her performance in Girl, Interrupted. If there is any movie to see right now, Changeling is it. I do not recommend this movie for younger audiences or for those who can not handle mature and disturbing events. However, for those who are looking for a thought-provoking and captivating film, Changeling fulfills every aspect.

I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?

They gave the 14 mil$ to CHARITY. duh.
Angie has been a UNCHR ambassador for 8 yrs.

NY Times is desperado & liars.

AGREE

Seriously though EVERY celeb out there has some element of media manipulation (or at least attempts it). It’s part of the PR game & just like politicians, celebs want a certain image projected & go about doing certain things with the media in order to get that portrayed, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve no idea if the specifics of what the NY Times said are true but I’ve no doubt that elements of it are true, but then I suspect EVERY celeb does it so it’s no big deal.

Just goes to show that you should never believe everything you read is 100% true regardless of which publication has written/said it or even if it has come straight out of the celeb’s mouth. It’s all a PR game.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm

People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes? You have a woman who is a homewrecker (Pitt was married when they starting dating). She admitted it. There are a lot of actors/actresses out there that don’t mention their charities and all they do for them. You have someone that is willing to put her kids in every magazine imaginable (even a breastfeeding picture) but YOU CAN NEVER ASK HER PERSONAL QUESTIONS!!!!!!. She is a media ***** and it’s always on her terms. She always complains of privacy and she sells personal photos. If she didn’t want Jennifer to respond to her saying things, then she should SHUT HER MOUTH. She is an actress and you all are falling for her lines.

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm
_____________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Poor thing… Stop wasting you’re time obsessing and making up stories about Angelina and get HELP. You’re MENTALLY ILL.

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm
She is waiting on you to do your part instead of whining about someone who has done more to help than a lot of self-absorbed, narcissistic Actors in Hollywood. Go tell Bono, Orpah, Whiny and a host of others to give all away. Angelina Jolie does what she can to bring awareness. It is not her fault, that she is making others look like slackers.

#46, you have completely summed up the trainwreck, homewrecking, media attention Wh-o-r-e that is Angelina. She is so phony and she needs stop playing to the cameras already. She is playing the role of philanthropist mommy of the year and that is an act. She is an actress….WAKE UP PEOPLE and please take off the gullibility hats already!!

justJared fan @ 11/21/2008 at 6:17 pm

I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?
——————-
Tell that to Oprah, Bono, or even Princess Diana when she was still alive. HYPOCRITE!

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
Geez hens, pull out Whiny and the homewrecker card. Poor Pathetic eternal victim Jen is always good for a case against AJ or two. Let’s hope the girl stays single and whiny, so that you guys can have something to whine about.

chitownsfinest @ 11/21/2008 at 6:18 pm

#3 I’m with you on that one! But you know the Bradgeloonies are going to come outta the woodworks. She is trying soooo hard to refine that image. Sorry sweetie but we know your game and we know how you are. No kind of money will change it.

bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 6:15 pm:
Yeah bdj, I do my part but unlike Angelina, I do it anonymously and from my heart, not outwardly and for my pocket. I’m not whining about anything, I just pity all of you Brangelina kool-aid drinkers who believe she can do no wrong. She does a lot of wrong, look into it and stop praising her already.

# 46 whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes?

where do u come from? where i am leopards have spots. tigers have stripes. zebras have stripes. giraffes have spots. bumble bees have stripes. ladybugs have spots.

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?

Tell the same thing To Bill Gates!

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:25 pm

I think Brad’s dropping this crap.He and jolie are OVER!!!

I don’t care if it is true or not

The media lies and so do celebrities, and the world keeps turning :)

http://www.buzzword101.com

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:25 pm
===========
jenhen, keep dreaming. :lol:

and angie is known to do A LOT of charity quietly. but since the media insists on stalking her and her family, she tries her best to shift the focus instead on humanitarian issues. this is not an attempt to glorify herself, it is in the hopes that people will be more aware of the issues that are more often than not ignored.

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:30 pm

Funny stuff!! Perez and Lainey are actually proud of Jolie for manipulating the press. Lainey said she’s been saying that for years now.about Brad and Angelina….so People’s mad..big whup…they got caught..they might as well own up to it!!! Actually they don’t need to own up to it..Readers have known this for years about them.Isn’t it odd that Brad’s name isn’t in this much.Is he leaking these stories???Is it break up time…

german fans @ 11/21/2008 at 6:30 pm

jennifer aniston goes to the ivy for attention and her fans are whining about angelina jolie! thats the sad part of anistons life,she will be forever connected to angelina.poor thing,nobody is talking about her dog movie,only ‘poor poor jen’.

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?

Tell the same thing to Bill Gates

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm

Then why are you telling us about it ?

All those wrong she told us herself ,so what,s new

Thanks, Larry Hackett for clearyfing that. NY Times have gone to the dumps.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:31 pm

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
Geez hens, pull out Whiny and the homewrecker card. Poor Pathetic eternal victim Jen is always good for a case against AJ or two. Let’s hope the girl stays single and whiny, so that you guys can have something to whine about.
————————————————————————————-
Really, bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 6:18 pm
Why not comment on the other things I said too. You are so right!! That comment was all about Jennifer. I’m so glad to here you are such a fan of someone who has the moral class of an alley cat. Classy!!

Thank you!

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this was b.s. though. Such a ridiculous waste of space.

Would these maniston bit ches go get a life and watch reruns of friends,lol

MS. JOLIE POSTS HERE N JUST JARED ARE USUALLY CROWDED WITH PEOPLE GIVIND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS.
SO SURPRISINGLY, TODAY WE HAVE ONLY 63 COMMENTS UNTIL NOW. WHAT IS GOING ON ??
I MEAN IS THERE ANYTHING HAPPENING WITH TEAM JOLIE ?
OH, WAIT.
NOW YOU ALL DON’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT HOW THIS ***** MANIPULATES THE MEDIA.
WELL, NEXT TIME PEREZHILTON OR ANY OTHER SHITEOUS BLOGGER SLAMS JENNIFER ANISTON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL THEM..
JOLIE FAME WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE !!

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm
_________________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Look it’s another stupid, crazy, hateful, envy, jealous, narrow-minded… women showing her hate and posting lies about Angelina.

Poor thing, let me give you a hand.

1) Brad had already split when they started dating.

2) Man you people are stupid :lol: She is a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, her “job” is to bring awareness to the cause of refugees. How does she do that with the media and the public knowing about it?

Angelina has been with the UN for almost 8 years , she started in Fev of 2001. she has given not just her time and dedication, but her money.

3) Like i’ve said, you really are stupid :lol: Actors, celebrities, royalty have been making photoshoots of their family and kids for years. They do it for several reasons one of them being that it eases the hunt from the paparazzi.

The paparazzi entered the clinic in France and try to make a hold from the room above Angelina’s so they cold take pics, they invaded their propriety… Brad and Angelina just try, and rightful so, to have some controle over it and making sure that the money doesn’t ends up on their pockets but in the pockets of people that need it.

4) On the contrary, Angelina NEVER complains about privacy. The only thing she complains is when the paps get to close to the kids.

5) Do you think Agelina gives a **** to Aniston or to what she thinks? :lol: :lol:

Do yopurself a favor,stop wasting you’re time obsessing and making up stories and lies about Angelina and get HELP. You’re MENTALLY ILL.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:31 pm
Too funny. At last AJ is a fighter. I commented on the homewreck card because it is the hen’s ace in the hole. When all else fails, whine about poor pathetic eternal victim Jen. AJ is living her life on her own terms. You do not have to like her and she probably could care less. As a fan, I admire her for her talent and humanitarian work. Marriages fall apart on a daily basis in Hollyweird and the real world. BP and AJ stand by their truth and Jen has gone on record wishing them the best. Since I was not a party to the triangle as the hens, I will refrain from judging. It is all good.

german fans @ 11/21/2008 at 6:37 pm

i know lots of people from third world countries (mostly from sudan,ethiopia) who are VERY PROUD OF ANGELINA JOLIE DRAWING ATTENTION TO THEIR CAUSES!
YOU HATERS CAN TALK **** ABOUT HER BUT IN THE END OF THE DAY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOVE HER!

Andrómeda @ 11/21/2008 at 6:38 pm

Of course the NYT article was a lie.

Plus Angelina is one of the actresses who is more critize in magazines, they write lies about her every week in order to sell…
So i don´t understand why they are saying she is manipulative…

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:38 pm

JM @ 11/21/2008 at 6:34 pm

Would these maniston bit ches go get a life and watch reruns of friends,lol
-__________________________________________________

Nice!!! Same morals as Angie I see….

and melissa, just stick with one name already. u have so much hatred i truly believe it’s time for you to seek therapy. did ur daddy run off with with a younger, hotter babe than ur mom? just deal with those issues first before u start bashing people u dont even know. jennifer is not grateful for ur eternal need to regard her as a pitiful victim. she’s a big girl, she can do that all on her own.

Bravo people magazine for standing up to this article full of caca.

For your consideration: President Obama, please if you ever need a new press secratary, Angelina Jolie got my vote!!!!! thank you sir.

german fans @ 11/21/2008 at 6:42 pm

SINCE YOU ANISTON FANS CALL ANGELINA NAMES HERE IS SOMETHING TO REMIND YOU THE REAL FAME******

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCLhCihqpw

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=am8Y9Uzkbv4

oh honey you don’t want me to start on your name changing as s-your idol maniston is a coke snorting, piss upon whiny dog, stick with one name and then your pathetic as s can talk-getalife maniston,lol

African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 6:44 pm

ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!

Rotflmao! I looooooooooooooooves it!!!!!

So People is the epitome of journalistic integrity? Cry me a river!

They only print what the publicists or the talent want them to print., never touching anything controversial. They don’t do their own research, they wait to hear from the reps, they always write fluffy feel-good pieces that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Pot, meet kettle!

i love how the troll keeps talking about class,aint nothing classy about a 40yr old woman showing her dried out cooch and saggy tits in a too small bikini while getting drunk on margaritas and puffing marlboros like a drunk sailor on leave,lol, maniston is thy name,lol

secretary …spelling suck!. LOL.

Imagin if a man can do all this, he would be praise as a true leader, smart, savy and a genius, but since it’s a woman and also it’s Angelina Jolie, she has to be conniving, manipulative and controlling….NYT, why are you still living in 1928?

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm

From Ted on E!

Angelina Jolie: Deceitful, Wannabe Publicist, Part II
Today 11:58 AM PST by Ted Casablanca

J Redden/UNHCR via Getty Images

Thank heavens somebody’s listening. The supposedly still venerable New York Times finally echoed what we’ve been bitching about for eons: Angelina Jolie knows her way around press manipulation about as well as she does married men. We said it. Now the Times is saying it: Jolie is the woman aspiring Hollywood publicists should be studying with everything they’ve got.

Oh, and Angie’s reaction to the NYT calling her out like this? “She pretends to be irked,” relayed a Brangelina mutual friend, “but secretly, I know she loves it.” As do we, of course, as do we.

African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 6:58 pm

Every celeb out there has at least one publicist to help them shape their image in a positive way, someone who sells the public an image that is so far from reality, it could be an alternate world.

Angelina Jolie does not have anyone and the only image she sells is her true self and this is a bad thing??!!! Is it that the public enjoys being lied to or why is this a big deal??!!

Gah! I’ll never understand showbusiness and the Fanistons!!!

African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 7:01 pm

Ted is an idiot, How can he say someone is finally listenting to his calling AJ out for something he also says other celebrities do?

What sense does that make???!!

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 7:02 pm

Trevor is her publicist..Look it up !

How did you guys get off topic.Why is Jennifer in here?

FOCUS!!!

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
________________________________

Ted C?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Man, you really are desperate aren’t you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
She pretends to be irked,” relayed “Huvane”. Too funny. As if, AJ cares What Ted C or source thinks. Chances are, AJ does not even know about this. It is funny how all these articles appear when they are out of the country. However, if being called smart and master of your career, image, and bringing awareness to your causes are bad things, then sign me up.

Angie is busted and People is trying to save ties with their cash cow. Only the delusional would believe a rag mag over the NY Times. What’s that sound….It’s Angie’s credibility sinking even lower. The Angie loons are going to have the dumbest excuses for this… too funny!! What a bunch of idiots. Now they’re gonna be up all night posting in the Addicts defense while the rest of us go out and have a life tonight!! Thanks JJ!

anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 7:02 pm
___________________________

Trevor Nielson her publicist? :lol: :lol: Do yourself a favor do a little research before posting.

a troll telling me too focus,lol,go tell maniston to have mayer aim straighter,lol

watching sportscenter @ 11/21/2008 at 7:08 pm

complete bullshit
we all no angelina is trying to get the most out of magazines like u
ur lying people

juju @ 11/21/2008 at 7:03 pm anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
________________________________

Ted C?? Man, you really are desperate aren’t you?

People mag?? So are you losers!!

Most people don’t know that they themselves are been controlled and manipulated by the media everyday when they turn on that Tv, radio or reading the tabloids and newspapers. This remind me of the movie V for Vendetta…LOL. The media so used to be the puppet master that it so hard for it to have some one from the mass puppet to turn around and said, no more, you have to do what I want……..sweet!

Geez I guess the hens are in denial about all the lies, fiction and malice the NYT have published. NYT has been caught in more lies with their stories and writers inventing sources than the National Enquirer and that is saying something. At least the National Enquirer have broken some real stories. Read up hens, before spouting off.

natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:04 pm
______________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Busted for what? For not needing a publicist and all the other people that all the actors need to take care of her image and business? For using the spotlight to help others?

:lol: :lol:

You’re the idiot. An idiot consumed by hate. Poor thing…

GET A LIfE JENHO ANUSTON @ 11/21/2008 at 7:13 pm

GET A LIFE JENHO ANUSTON

get a life jenho anuston instead of whining for 4 long years even though you had been humped and dumped by several guys.

So uncool for jenho anuston to be bitter about a 4 year divorce when she had been dumped and now being peed on by john mayer

i see the name changes are coming fast and furious,lol

#98
Now that you got that off your chest, go hug your boyfriend doll. Have a nice night.

These two are just attention seekers, of course they give millions to charities, if they did not they would pay it in taxes, it ‘s called a tax shelter and then they use the publicity from their charities to further themselvs.

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what Brad Pitt ever saw in her.

Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:09 pm
_________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Losers? :lol: :lol: You’re in a blog, using different names, posting about crap about someone you hate for no reason and you’re calling other losers? You really have some issues don’t you? :lol: :lol: :lol:

And, between Ted C and People , the choice is obvious.

kim @ 11/21/2008 at 7:16 pm

This is the real attention seeker. Enjoy

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gjvSA7n0l3c&fmt=18

African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 7:21 pm

Bursted for what exactly??!

The same thing Jennifer Lopez has 8 people doing for her?

The same thing Jennifer aniston has Havuna doing for her?

The same thing Gwnyth Paltrow, Jennifer Connelly, Madonna, Reese Witherspoon, even Paris freaking Hilton all have people doing for them?

Are some people just too stupid to think?

kim @ 11/21/2008 at 7:16 pm
_______________________________

This is what Brad saw in Angelina:

“But she also has the biggest heart and just inexhaustible spirit and sweetness and goodness,” he says. “She’s an inexhaustible mother and great grace and the real glue of the family.”

This and her beauty, her intelligence, strength…

natascha—or whatever names you use— be careful, if the NYT wants to open this bag of worms they better be aware that all the bones may come tumbling out— trust, your girl jen has more to lose in this debate about media manipulation that angie does— EVERYBODY KNOWS AND HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS THAT SHE AND HER PR ***** HAVE MADE DEALS WITH BOTH TABS AND SO CALLED LEGITMATE MEDIA FOR POSITIVE STORIES ABOUT HER,
You and the other jenhens may want to rewrite history but there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.
By-the way you think this non-story will hurt angie? are you that stupid? this will only make her more popular, she is after all the underdog with the big bad NYT making money off her for something that every celeb and their agents do, only difference is that angie does it better.

Name calling has as much effective as whining, spamming and changing names over and over on a blog, NONE. It might make the person feel better, but does not change Angelina Jolie’s life. She still has the 6 adorable children, sexy and mighty fine partner and the striving career. Whiny X still has her hens, or not really a hen but really feel bad for ole pathetic one.

Just looked on E and saw pictures of A.Eckhart and fraudison and they have matching chins.

Yes, we’re all idiots, #106, and you’re a socially maladjusted teenage girl, sitting at home again on a Friday night, and stewing in your hormonal angst-ridden envy of someone who’s got SO much more going than you.

Here’s a suggestion: do your English homework. Maybe this time you’ll finally get the hang of all that tricky punctuation.

Andrómeda @ 11/21/2008 at 7:28 pm

That Ted is so stupid. And he considers himself a journalist?.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/news/2008/11/21/angelina-jolie-dedicates-role-to-mum-91466-22306965/
Entire article at link
Angelina Jolie dedicates role to mum
Nov 21 2008 by Rob Driscoll, Western Mail

Angelina Jolie is tipped for another Oscar for her new movie, in which she plays the mother of a missing child. She tells Rob Driscoll that it was one of her toughest challenges yet and reveals that she’s dedicating it to her own mother

THE tears are welling up in Angelina Jolie’s eyes. That’s because Hollywood’s most talked-about star is discussing her mother, who died last year – and who surprisingly became the model for her latest big-screen role, in the Clint Eastwood-directed drama Changeling.

“Her name was Marcheline, but we called her Marshmallow as a joke, because she was just the softest, most gentle woman in the world,” recalls Jolie, who at this point battles to stop herself from crying outright.

“She was really, really sweet and she would never get angry. She couldn’t swear to save her life. But when it came to her kids, she was really fierce and so this (film) is very much her, and her story, in that she was the woman I related to, who had that elegance and strength through just knowing what was right.”

A heart-tugging period drama based on real events, Changeling sees Jolie take on the role of Christine Collins, a California telephone-company supervisor and single mother whose nine-year-old son went missing in 1928. When the police announce that the boy has been found, and present Collins with a child she doesn’t recognise, the stage is set for a startling confrontation between a bewildered yet determined woman and a corrupt Los Angeles police department that has its own sinister reasons for wanting to silence Collins and close the kidnapping case.

Jolie’s extraordinary performance in the film is already being rightly tipped for a Best Actress Oscar nomination, yet as a mother herself – she and partner Brad Pitt have six children, three of them adopted – the 33-year-old actress must have found making the movie an incredibly harrowing and emotionally demanding experience.

“It was very hard,” says Jolie, who became pregnant with her twins during the shooting of the film. “When I first read the script I couldn’t put it down, but then I said ‘No’ immediately. I didn’t want to go into this project because it was too upsetting, and I didn’t want to do a film about a child being kidnapped. But then afterwards I couldn’t stop talking about this person, Christine Collins.

the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:07 pm

Since you called yourself a ***** that is exactly what you are. Now you insignificant ***** with HIV why don’t you run along to the biggest ***** in Hw and kiss that chin chin face of hers.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996322.html?categoryId=1278&cs=1

‘Burn After Reading’ on fire overseas
Comedy grossed $2.5 mil from 1,367 playdates
By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK, ARCHIE THOMASMore Articles:

While James Bond continues to dominate the international box office, the Coen brothers are also reaping some solace from the solid overseas perf of “Burn After Reading.”
Pic is showing long legs with $67.5 million to date in foreign territories.

Dark comedy is now nearing the international performance for the Coens’ previous outing, “No Country for Old Men.” Over the Nov. 14-16 weekend, “Burn” grossed $2.5 million from 1,367 playdates in its ninth week in release.

Toplining Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Tilda Swinton, pic has seen its biggest biz in the U.K. with $11.9 million.

The U.K. is one of a handful of hotspots for Coen fare; the others are Spain, Germany, France and Australia.

Moody Western “No Country” cumed $86.7 million at the international box office and $74.3 million domestically for a worldwide total of $161 million.

“Burn After Reading’s” worldwide total to date is $127.4 million. Pic has yet to open in France.

Italian auds and critics agreed over Clint Eastwood’s Angelina Jolie starrer “Changeling,” which grossed $1.6 million from 299 runs for a respectable $5,402 per-location average.

“Changeling” got off to a slow start in France — where Eastwood is something of a national hero — but made up for it. In its first five days, pic earned $2.8 million from 417.

the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:19 pm
_________________________

All actors have a group of sicks that hate them for no reason or people that turn their frustrations and problems to them.

The group of people that hates Angelina for no reason is constitued mainly of a bunch of crazy, envy, jealous, hateful, narrow-minded women that are fans of Jennifer Aniston. Like YOU.

That’s why i keep telling you that instead of wasting you’re time with someone you don’t like, you should use that time to find a good therapist to work through you’re issues.

NEW YORK TIMESCRAP @ 11/21/2008 at 7:32 pm

New York Times prints crap just to sell.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996322.html?categoryId=1278&cs=1

Pic is showing long legs with $67.5 million to date in foreign territories.

‘Burn After Reading’ on fire overseas

While James Bond continues to dominate the international box office, the Coen brothers are also reaping some solace from the solid overseas perf of “Burn After Reading.”

Dark comedy is now nearing the international performance for the Coens’ previous outing, “No Country for Old Men.” Over the Nov. 14-16 weekend, “Burn” grossed $2.5 million from 1,367 playdates in its ninth week in release.

Toplining Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Tilda Swinton, pic has seen its biggest biz in the U.K. with $11.9 million.

The U.K. is one of a handful of hotspots for Coen fare; the others are Spain, Germany, France and Australia.

Moody Western “No Country” cumed $86.7 million at the international box office and $74.3 million domestically for a worldwide total of $161 million.

“Burn After Reading’s” worldwide total to date is $127.4 million. Pic has yet to open in France.

Italian auds and critics agreed over Clint Eastwood’s Angelina Jolie starrer “Changeling,” which grossed $1.6 million from 299 runs for a respectable $5,402 per-location average.

“Changeling” got off to a slow start in France — where Eastwood is something of a national hero — but made up for it. In its first five days, pic earned $2.8 million from 417.

you mean the golden shower couple,lol

Angelina is not getting as many favorable comments as usual. Is it possible that all the 12 year olds who are fanatically devoted to her are now posting on Jared Jr?

JealousHAGS @ 11/21/2008 at 7:35 pm

All these jealous hags who say they hate Angelina spends a lot of time reading about her. They are so green with envy and hate, it’s consuming them. Trolls, admit it you are so obsessed with the Jolie-Pitts.

From Lainey @ 11/21/2008 at 7:36 pm

The real Brange

Am about to have a very smug moment. If you can’t stand it, click away quickly.

Wasn’t intending on writing about the New York Times piece titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” because, well, why is this news? But I keep getting the emails so…

Go through the archives of this blog and you will find that message repeated repeatedly: when it comes to the Pitts, they are the masters of the game. Always in control. Always strategising. Always maneuvering. Always selling. And a lot of people are always buying.

The publication says Jolie has no publicist, cites specific instances where the Brange dictated editorial terms to People Magazine and Hello and also refers to a time way back just after her split with BBT when she orchestrated a photo shoot with Maddox that began her transformation from oversexed wild crazy girl to humanitarian Earth Mother. Yes, she’s militant about her public image. Yes, HE is militant about his public image. Yes they are running the show. Yes they throw their weight around and many members of the press wither at their demands. Yes People Magazine is half way up their asses.

Again…why is this news?

As I’ve said time and again, the Pitts are never photographed unless they WANT to be photographed.

Getting it validated by the New York Times though is pretty amazing. And the New York Times giving the Brange a backhanded compliment is pretty amazing too. Brangelunatics don’t like the New York Times anymore.

Having said that, the article describes the Brange machinations almost as if they are rogue moves, as if they operate by a completely different set of standards from everyone else.

Please.

It’s the same playbook. They just execute it better than the rest.

Shelf Ass Jessica Biel executes it pretty well too. And last week Jennifer Aniston did a kick ass job as well, redeeming herself from Huvane’s previous blunders.

As such, an even BETTER article would have been to call out all the media manipulators and rank them according to proficiency supported by Q scores, graphs and pie charts, magazine mentions, message board activity, and paparazzi interest with the Brange sitting way at the top and, say, someone like Mischa Barton ranking closer to the bottom.

Let’s call it The Famewhore Games.

Then would the MiniVan Majority believe that all celebrities are full of sh-t?

the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:25 pm
________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, Angelina beats the crap out of Brad every night and he obvious love it.

the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:33 pm
__________________________________

Sorry, poor thing, but i don’t have idols.
But i do like and admire Angelina.

i love when the troll agrees with it self-so entertaining,lol

Poor troll— are you mad because all the work you, jen and her hens and PR have done over the last two weeks have been in vein? your efforts did’nt work? Angie still #1 Brad still love her, she is loved by her kids and the Pitt family and most important and what seem to drive you crazy is that she still has millions of fans who will continue to defend her ALWAYS

Oh well whatever the Q score is says she’s liked by many so you don’t matter… OBVIOUSLY.

the whor e @ 11/21/2008 at 7:37 pm
_____________________________________

Anyone what to try to gess what’s her next name will be? :lol: :lol:

I believe in Angelina and I’m glad that People did the right thing by defending their values and therefore defending her. I agree with other fans’ suggestion to “put the spotlight” on this Barns person and see what’s his/her agenda. Sounds like a phony name to me. I don’t read the NYT but sounds like it’s desperate for some attention.

WHO THE F.U.C.K CARES!!! Also, Angelina’s teeth bug the S.H.I.T. out of me. They bend downward in the front and are not all that straight and is a weird gumline. Before you ask, my teeth are perfect!

ZacChace hens/teens can go to Just Jared Jr and get all the love they want. Vanessa is the new American Sweetheart and those Disney chicks make Whiny love life look like “As the world Turns”. In fact, poor pathetic Jen has her eye on one of the Jonas Bro. Just a rumor.

AG- #107 answer for your last questions is YES! * I got it right…nanananaaaana na*

If you think Brad finds sexiness in Angelina’s physical beauty…..man, you can only imagine how that is fueled by her sexy, kick ass mind!!

How many men get that combination plate??? It’s usually one or the other….or a ‘bit’ of both. Brad is one lucky dude and he bloody well knows it. HIs animated persona on Oprah was such evidence of his joy in life these days.

And why not?? The list goeson……….

Great mother, sexy mate, kick ass empowered woman, A list Oscar winning actress, one of the most beautiful and powerful women on the planet, pilot, humanitarian with a big heart and an inexhaustible spirit.

My lord, he must wake up each morning and roll over and go, “Oh, my god, it is real.”

He felt like the ‘iceman’ in his first marriage, I think the tatoo is saying, “that’s over, thank god, and here’s a reminder of how lucky you are now.” Just my take.

Anyone what = Anyone wants

OMG—-this is hilarrious…Soooo the X hens are going nuts as usual after 4 years …

OK…..X and her hens…I have a serious question for you all pathetic, weak things..You do know that the DIVORCE rate in US is OVER 50%…soooo why does this talentless, ugly b!tch still act like she was the ONLY one that got a fcuking divorce…ROTFLMAO…ohhh “I don’t go there..it’s been 100 years ago”…what??? my a@@..yep the b!tch says 100 years ago but decides to use her divorce to promote her doggy movie by using ANGIE..yooo… hooo.. you said it was 100 years ago..so what gives ..well oce you are a lying ho you always are a lying ho. I hope she’s happy spooning with Norman and Dolly… :lol: :lol:

Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @ 11/21/2008 at 7:53 pm

Charity means doing something nice for someone and not expecting anything in return. Can anyone actually say Angelina hasn’t gotten anything in return for her charity work? Global fame, millions of dollars, glowing news coverage, getting out of that sticky little adultery situation. Ms. Jolie’s fans must be really damaged if they think exploiting helpless people for personal gain is even considered an act of charity. I know Angie’s fans will all defend this practice saying all stars use the media to promote themselves, including Jennifer Aniston. True, but how many exploit refugees and orphans to do damage control when they get involved with a married man? Giving an interview to a magazine to promote a film is one thing. Exploiting desperate people in need of food/shelter and using your own children as leverage to make sure you only get positive news coverage is one of the most awful celebrity stories I have ever heard. Angelina Jolie is one of the most shameful, soulless people to ever work in Hollywood. And that’s saying a lot.

thelookoflove1365 @ 11/21/2008 at 8:00 pm

So Ted Casa bakla still thinks he’s in the know? A mutual friend relayed to him? Bahahahah! It’s nice of him to scour blogs and internets, read ragazines and then write about it as if he talked to some one with the real insider knowledge. Ted is prolly the one with drug problems, based on these stories/fictions he keep on writing.

bakla=gay in my country

piper, with a low @ 11/21/2008 at 8:00 pm

Re: The NYT article…

While the article was a bit on the myopic side i.e. ignoring the fact that every celebrity tries to control their image, the fact that Angelina is in a very unusual circumstance which merits her handling her image with an iron fist, it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. I think ‘manipulator’ is a bad choice of words. It’s called EXERCISING ONE’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Why people have a beef against Angelina exercising hers is beyond me.

Quite frankly, if Angelina didn’t take measures, these journalists/paps would climb through the JPs windows. And quite frankly, both Brad and Angelina have the right to decide who they talk to, when and where the interviews will occur, and why they are talking to the press.

And I agree with those who resent that the ‘journalist’ ignored the fact that Brad does this too. H*ll… he went to that small French newspaper with the twins’ birth announcement; he banned L & S, In Touch and their ilk from the Global Green news conferences in ’06; and he continually kept entertainment shows like E! News and ET at bay after their continual disregard for reporting inaccurate stories, trespassing, and inability or unwillingness to issue retractions and dozens of other actions pertaining to the press.

I suggest hens go to unhcr.org and read up on the duties a UN Ambassador j. As usual, self righteous hens who have not lifted a finger(oh they do it quietly, right!!!) to help anyone is on a blog spouting nonsense. I am sure that the Refugees and orphans appreiciate anyone who can shed a light on their plight not too mention donating millions, lobbying congress and setting up foundations. They might want to tell, Charliz Theron(s), Ashley Judd, Michael Douglas and others to halt all work on behalf of the UN. Just to be on the safe side, tell Oprah, Bono, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck(who left his pregnant wife) to halt spotlighting conflicts in the Sudan and humanatrain crisis in Haiti and throughout the world. Let’s just mourn and wear sack cloth and ashes for poor pathetic Jen and the demise of the Golden Couple.

See how low the NY Times has gone, Ted C thinks his work is equal to what they write.

I am glad to read that people with brains are asking why the NY Times wrote this article. Sad to say the paper of record has become just another tabloid.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 8:04 pm

bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 7:24 pm

Name calling has as much effective as whining, spamming and changing names over and over on a blog, NONE. It might make the person feel better, but does not change Angelina Jolie’s life. She still has the 6 adorable children, sexy and mighty fine partner and the striving career. Whiny X still has her hens, or not really a hen but really feel bad for ole pathetic one.
___________________________________________________

WOW!!! Pot calling the kettle black.. In mostly all your posts that is all you have been doing is name calling. You are so funny!!

JealousHAGS @ 11/21/2008 at 8:05 pm

ew @ 11/21/2008 at 7:43 pm
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
So if it bugs you why are you torturing yourself and come and look at Angelina’s picture. Admit it you are just another jealous hag who is obsessed with Angelina.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 8:04 pm
yep but that W H O R E word is really name calling. Whiny is just an affectionate term for the Whiny one or poor pathetic eternal victim Jen(PPEV).

Angie, you GAIN a fan @ 11/21/2008 at 8:10 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/angelina-jolie-supports-r_n_135918.html?show_comment_id=16979972

Angelina Jolie is furthering her work on behalf as refugees beyond her role as Goodwill Ambassador for the UN Refugee Agency. She has teamed up to help refugee children:

Actress Angelina Jolie and a team of 25 powerful law firms are joining forces against the government’s attempt to deport thousands of unaccompanied and illegal immigrant children – including hundreds from New York City.

Backed by Microsoft Corp., Kids in Need of Defense will provide free legal representation to children separated from their parents. The group will open offices in New York and other several other cities…

“These children often have nothing – no money, no support and no family,” Jolie said in a statement. “Many end up becoming lost, traumatized, and ultimately forgotten.”

Jolie also spoke Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations, introducing a panel on the International Criminal Court and the prosecution of perpetrators in Darfus, sponsored by the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.

“Over the past seven years, I’ve worked with UNHCR and I’ve traveled around the world trying to bring attention to refugees,” she said. “It’s been a remarkable education.”

Jolie, who has visited dozens of war-torn countries around the world, spoke passionately on behalf of the victims she’s met. “I’ve seen refugees return to live among the same people who attacked them,” she said. “They are returning to the same lawlessness that sent them running in the first place. I’ve seen aid workers tear up as they put ladies on a bus and say, ‘I don’t know what we’re sending them back to…

“I don’t know if the ICC is the answer. And I don’t know what type of court is, or what it would need to be to make all of us agree and make it strong enough,” Jolie admitted. “But I do know this: No mother who had her children killed in front of her, no young girl sold into slavery, no boy kidnapped and forced to be a child soldier and no young girl like the 3-year-old I met in Sierra Leone, who had her limbs cut off, should be expected to simply forget. No one should have to choose between peace and justice.”

#69 uol ( ugly obsessive lowlife )

OMG.. uol .. you sound SOOOOOOOOOOO ……………DUUUUUUUUUUMB… LOL LOL !

Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @
________________________________________

Yes, she got a lot from her humanitarian work, but it had nothing to do with “Global fame” or all the crap that you wrote. Angelina didn’t need to risk her life, to waste her time and money to have “Global fame” and all the crap the in make on your sick mind, she already had that.

Since Fev of 2001 Angelina has visited more than 25 countries, has risked her life and has given her time and money, millions of them, that heve saved and helped a lot of people.

While you poor excuse of a human beign spend you’re time in the internet hating on people that you don’t know and throught you’re frustantions and issues into to somenone that has done you no harm, Angelina sepends her time helping others and making the life of other human beign better.

Tchaikovsky @ 11/21/2008 at 8:11 pm

Heroes & Pioneers 21 of 100

Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie
By George Clooney

It is one thing to talk about the problems of the world and quite another to actually try to change things.

As a team, actors Brad Pitt, 44, and Angelina Jolie, 32, have served as our goodwill ambassadors worldwide. They brought help to Pakistan in 2005, after a catastrophic earthquake killed tens of thousands of people and left millions homeless. They have tended to the poor and sick in Africa. And they’ve raised global awareness—and contributed $1 million of their own money—for the victims of atrocities in Darfur. Brad co-founded Not on Our Watch, an organization set up to focus global attention on Darfur and other hot spots.
In the U.S., Brad and Angelina didn’t just talk about, or even just throw money at, the tragic fallout from Hurricane Katrina. They actually moved to New Orleans and have set about trying to make right what so many have made wrong. Brad established a project to finance and build 150 new homes in the Ninth Ward.

Angelina has worked tirelessly through the United Nations on behalf of refugees around the world, touring border camps in Africa, Asia and Latin America and lobbying on Capitol Hill. The couple cares for three adopted children, from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam, in addition to their biological daughter.

There are hundreds of people who could be honored for their good works, but I’ve seen Brad and Angelina firsthand, and their commitment together is truly impressive.
Clooney is actively engaged in trying to resolve the Darfur crisis

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733756_1735278,00.html

Just one last thing before I go out with friends (sorry Angie Addicts I know that’s foreign to you). Just because Angie can’t lay off the pipe doesn’t mean you should follow. Night Night. Sweet Dreams.

# 133 Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @ 11/21/2008 at 7:53 pm

OK–you choose to be a complete MORON and and IDIOT with you post…Heck that is your choise to mahe an a@@ of yourself…
Honey bunch!!! Angie and Brad were both major actors and had made MILLIONS of dollars before they decided to go into humanitarian work!!!! Sooo you decided to lie as a usual pathetic X fan to make a point…but honey you fcuked up sooo bad…so now what will your come back possibly be???? Hey..go check the timeline when and how much they donated so that you don’t look like a complete IDIOT!!!

sepends = spends

OFCOIRSE I CAN SEE THEM TELLING PEOPLE MAGAZINE. PLEASE MAKE ME LOOK LIKE AN ANGEL TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD. BUT HAS SHE TRIED TO PATCH THINGS UP WITH HER FATHER. HA! AND SHE CALLS HER SELF A ROLE MODEL!!! U NEED TO START FROM HOME BEFORE U CAN CALL UR SELF A HUMANITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!

bdj @ 03/08/2008 at 6:02 pm

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4413688&page=1

Celebrities Give Diplomacy A Star-Power Punch

Bono, Angelina, George, Mia and More Work Closely With The United Nations On Relief Efforts
Beyond the glamour of the red carpet and the clamor of fans at a rock concert, an elite group of celebrities have gotten so involved in diplomacy that they are eclipsing true diplomats.

Photos
Starstruck Heads of State

“You know the Secretary General very often tells me, ‘You know, whenever there is an opportunity we need a star.’…He says, ‘Every time a star speaks, what I have to say just disappears, it has absolutely no meaning, no one listens to me, but people will listen to the star, will listen to the celebrity,’ said U.N. spokesperson Michele Montas.

Nowadays these celebrities are taking on increasingly complex and weighty roles in the fights against poverty, pestilence and war.
U2’s lead singer, Bono, has direct access to world leaders, and he’s credited with bringing worldwide attention and money to the poverty and HIV crisis in Africa.

“I tell you what my Messianic complex is, I wanna have fun and I wanna change the world. That’s it,” he told ABC News Nightline anchor Cynthia McFadden.

Oscar winner Angelina Jolie recently traveled to Iraq for the second time and wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about the refugee crisis there.

Tune in to Good Morning America Weekend on Sunday to see more celebrities on the frontlines.

“Generals in Iraq, presidents of Iraq, they know if somebody like Angelina goes in they are going to be able to get the message across very quickly.

Jolie has even been invited to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee and has teamed up with California Congresswoman Diane Feinstein to lobby for legislation on Iraqi refugee relief.

Jolie says her activism helps her counter the shallowness of Hollywood. “It gives celebrity some reason. Celebrity is very weird … So when you’re doing something good, and you can bring attention to that, or discuss that, then it feels like you have some sense in your life,” Jolie told ABC News “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos

oh yeah she’s controlling the media and creating the perfect image while she’s on drugs? LMAO She is better than I thought.

Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 8:12 pm
_______________________________

Here she is again announcing that she is “I go out with friends” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Man you people are pathetic and have some serious issues.

Being a celebrity today means many things: walking the red carpet, dodging the paparazzi. It also means using your attention getting powers to better the world.

Thanks to the power of celebrity influence, consciousness and dollars get raised.

Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family.

Have people forgotten the exodus of every major media outlet and pap agency to Lake Como, Italy in 2006 because they thought a wedding was taking place? Or how about the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stories and crawls about a New Orleans wedding less than 8 months ago?

So again, I’m sorry — if I’m Angelina Jolie what are my choices again?

1) I can be chased down in the street for the elusive first photographs of my child which will endanger my family and fatten the photographer and that of American Media Inc (tabloid behomoth) OR…

2) I can arrange a pictorial in a benign reputable weekly like People, get paid 14 million and distribute it to people around the world in need – it may even actually SAVE LIVES.

Hmmmm…decisions, decisions. Well, since I have a BRAIN. I’m going the Angelina Saves Lives route.

Let’s examine the Halle Berry route. Halle decides not to publish any pictorials, stating her daughter will “not be a public figure.” The papz laugh in her face. Halle’s home and property get invaded by papz trying to take pics of her infant daughter. Halle then decides to give them what they want and go to the zoo and the park and let the papz have at. Well, the next week, the pictures come out and the tabloid papz and tabloid publishing companies make their millions on the backs of her and her child.

I saw the many pics & stories about baby Nalah in People, US, STAR and the Bauer Publications – they ran them a good month. What does Halle get in return? well…NOTHING.

Not even a promise to not do it again, because OF COURSE, the papz will be out tomorrow and the next day and the next – annoying Halle and her child once again.

You can kind of view it like this:

Halle = O

American Media Inc & Bauer Publishing (In Touch, Life & Style) STAR, Natnl Enquirer, US Magazine, People magazine = 20-30 MILLION

Via Angelina Jolie & the Jolie Pitt Foundation: Drs Without Borders, US Military Children’s Foundation, UNHCR, AIDS & Malaria Foundations in SE Asia and Ethiopia, Millenium Project, KIND (Nationwide Network of Lawyers Assisting Minor Refugee Children) = 10 MILLION

Oh, and the PR Agencies/Agents that take 15% of whatever Angelina Jolie makes = ZERO. Because Angelina has NO agent, NO CAA, NO ICM, NO PK. Just her. That’s 15% back in her pocket, or rather to whatever charitable noble foundation she desires to give it to.

Yes, and now you see why you’re getting these strategically timed and placed articles – it’s very clear why Angelina Jolie must be punished.

Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

Good for People Mag for standing up. They know where all the bodies are buried. I’m sure the People editor was fit to be tied, here he gets raked over the coals for publishing a 6 year old story about Angelina’s Cambodian son, and the orphanage he was in, and the poverty in that country….

…and he knows just last WEEK he’s taking calls from CAA & PR power mogul Huvane asking him to publish Jen & John at the Sunset Towers, and to please write how loving they seemed. Or worse yet, he’s being asked to run a piece on how Jen’s 4th nose job isn’t really cosmetic, it’s all about her deviated septum.

Yet he takes it in the gut, for publishing skyrocketing HIV infection rates in Ethiopia, along with Angelina’s pictures of her daughter Zahara?

Wake up Hollywood. Though you may claim, this page is turning into Perez Hilton, most people would say, that happened a long time ago. It’s true, very seldom do you get an Oscar winning actress who is topping both the tabloids as well as the critically acclaimed list. The last person may have been Julia Roberts, but when she was peaking, the media wasn’t as incestuous as it is now. You didn’t have papers of note, quoting tabloid editors known for their lies. You can choose to view Jolie and her level of fame as an anamoly and something you don’t need to deal with – but the same problems will exist whether you discuss her or not — and that is, at the end of the day, what truly makes this a story to pay attention to, is that she, one of the biggest stars in the world, is NOT OWNED by the Death Star.

She’s powerful, all by her little self. In my book, that’s a reason to be admired, not exposed or cut down.

Hence why she’s on page 1 of the NYT. “Scary Smart,” indeed.

UN Freedom award @ 11/21/2008 at 8:21 pm

International Rescue Committee to honour UN refugee official, Angelina Jolie

6 November 2007 – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres and internationally renown actress Angelina Jolie, one of his agency’s most active supporters, will receive the International Rescue Committee’s annual Freedom Award for 2007 in New York tomorrow.

The award being given to UNHCR and its Goodwill Ambassador recognizes extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom has previously been given to another UN High Commissioner for Refugees – Sadako Ogata, in 1995.

Other Freedom Award winners include Winston Churchill (1958); George Soros (1993); Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (1995); Vaclav Havel (2003); and former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton (2006).
The IRC has for many years been UNHCR’s largest NGO partner.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24539&Cr=UNHCR&Cr1=Jolie

Angie, you have my RESPECT @ 11/21/2008 at 8:23 pm

Here is the one of the Q & A from msnbc.com.

Sean Smith is the senior writer for Newsweek.

Sean Smith: Your frustration here is not with Angelina, but with the media. She does, in fact, go lots of places without cameras, and works with refugees with no one looking at all. I had a section on that in the story that didn’t make it into the final version, becasue of space restrictions. It would be a wonderful world if people who do good work—non-famous, non-beautfiul ones—were rewarded and covered as much as stars are. She is aware of her privilege, by the way. How could she not be? You know, she really could just stay at home in her mansion in LA. and go to parties and things, and adopt no one. Would things really be better if she did?

Angie, you have my RESPECT @ 11/21/2008 at 8:24 pm

Here is the one of the Q & A from msnbc.com.

Sean Smith is the senior writer for Newsweek.

Warwick, NY: Does Angelina TRULY want to save the world or just look good for the media??? Personally I think she just wants to appear to be wholesome in the public eye.

Sean Smith: This is too cyncial, even for me. And it’s my job to be. She’s been doing this for six years. If it’s a lark just to get publicity, there are about 1 million easier ways to do that. Also, that headline is something one of my editors put on the story. I don’t think she’s trying to save the world, and she’s never said so. I think she’s just trying to be of use, and make some positive change. We really should not have put that headline on this story. It’s inaccurate

awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm
RIGHT ON. Very good Post from Chris. Everyone knows Huvane and company flood People Magazine and Blogs with Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen’s every move. This hatchet job by NYT was instigated by people that do not like that AJ is the biggest star in the Universe without PR representation and some greedy agent. More Power to the Jolie.

aniston HATES her MOM @ 11/21/2008 at 8:27 pm

Report Abuse
# 152 lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm OFCOIRSE I CAN SEE THEM TELLING PEOPLE MAGAZINE. PLEASE MAKE ME LOOK LIKE AN ANGEL TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD. BUT HAS SHE TRIED TO PATCH THINGS UP WITH HER FATHER. HA! AND SHE CALLS HER SELF A ROLE MODEL!!! U NEED TO START FROM HOME BEFORE U CAN CALL UR SELF A HUMANITARIAN!!!!!!!!!!
______________________

Uh, aj’s dad was a deadbeat who abandoned his family and didn’t support them financially. he’s lucky to have gotten as many chances from his son and daughter as he has, especially since he was absentee…and going by reports, it looks like they are giving him another one. He’s lucky they are so compassionate.

Aniston however, is another story – she has kicked her elderly mother, the only parent who raised her single handedly, out of her life and on the streets with no healthcare – has not even spoken to her in 12 years – forcing her mother to have to seek healthcare from indigent services in Los Angeles, not inviting her to her wedding (the woman never met Brad Pitt), and refers to her as a ‘disease.’

That is a true cold hearted b*tch of a monster. Some say she’s fabricated a ‘war,’ with mom, just because she’s embarrassed of her face…rumor has it, jen’s mom is a plastic surgery victim like her daughter and that jen was always embarrassed of her.

I guess you could call Jen Aniston a cold hearted monster who has no business being a mother to anyone – she should NEVER be a mother…let those ovaries dry up all the way, if this is the way she treats the only parent who ever raised her, and provided for her like dog sh*t..or worse than dog sh*t.

quiet no more : 09/23/2007 at 10:33 pm

Why does it bother people so much that Brad and Angelina do chairty work and have their picture taken?

Isn’t it more important that they are actually doing the philantropic work that they are doing?

Isn’t it more important that people see what is happening around the world and become encouraged in making a difference?

I think its absolutely ridiculous to put people down for helping the world become a better place. Which is more than we can say because we sit on our computers reading and arguing working ourselves up into maddening fury about the lives of people whose movies we watch or in the case of non fans don’t watch….if you don’t like how someone lives their lives, thats fine. if you don’t think they are genuine in the reasonings behind the work they do, thats fine also but don’t put them down for trying. it isn’t your place or my place to judge. Afterall we are the ones at our computer not out there flying to Iraq or Africa or Cambodia orVietnam or New Orleans trying to bring awareness. That is the hope at least in what they are doing… and if they get some publicity from it then thats just part of the deal the give and take of life. At least conversation is being started and people are going hmmm maybe theres something I can do….

the people on this page who are so full of anger are saddening… celebrity gossip should be fun and mindless. Nothing to get so worked up about… It isn’t ourreality it is theres… just everybody breathe and take a moment to reflect on the fact that these people could care less if we think they are doing charity work for the wrong or right reasons or for making decisions in which partners they choose or how they raise their kids. On the larger spectrum of the world we are insignificant in their lives.

Fans take no offense… I am a fan as well… but as a fan I know that my place is to appreciate their work and that is all. I am the first to admit that I enjoy reading about the things they do in their daily lives or their lives outside of film. Which is why I am on this site reading these stories…. but don’tallow these “haters” to fill you with negative energy. Read the stories and remain fans believe in the good of everyone and hope that the people full of hate sarcasm and anger will find their way to more positive energy and lives…
END RANT

POOR JARED @ 11/21/2008 at 8:29 pm

I feel sorry for you Jared! :)

Just Jared is crying all the way to the bank(Just Jared Jr and Sr.)

Mrs. Smith @ 11/21/2008 at 8:32 pm

#157 Award….
Thanks for posting that wonderful article, saying everything I’d like to say, and then some.
So glad that Larry Hackett at People is telling his side of this stupid bogus NYT article.

So the Times thinks Angelina told People 1. you will pay me 14 mill for the pics 2 you will not use the word bangelina 3 you will write about my charities 4 you will write nice things about me, brad and my family not only in this issue but in future issues. The Times wants us to think People said yes to all these things. WELL YOU GO GIRL. Forget Hillary we need Angelina as Sec of State.

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm I agree #36!!

Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?
——-
What an ignorant and dumb post!

lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm

Angie and her father have been in communication, Jon even visited her prior the twin birth, as reported recently by Contact com.

But what’s the fuss if she’s not talking with her dad , it’s none of our business just like we don’t criticize President elect Obama in not reconciling or talking with Dad till his death bed..

lovely @ 11/21/2008 at 8:15 pm

Angie and her father have been in communication, Jon even visited her prior the twin birth, as reported recently by Contact com.

But what’s the fuss if she’s not talking with her dad , it’s none of our business just like we don’t criticize President elect Obama in not reconciling or talking with Dad till his death bed..

so true so true. did you see how phony brad pitt was with his interview with oprah? phony and his stories seem strange. they are strange.

Poor hens. Still mad at Papa Pitt because he did not mention Jen on Oprah. They are tearing up Oprah’s forum, canceling their O Magazine subscription and will not camp out for the Oprah favorite things show. Sad world when the hens turn on Queen Oprah.

People should mind their business and leave Angelina alone.

# 171 Sharon @ 11/21/2008 at 8:41 pm –ok are you kidding me rigth???
It was one of his best interviews showing how much he loves Angie and their kids…I guess that’s why you are soo pissed off … it is b/c all the fugly has the peeboy and her dogs ROTFLMAO! :lol: Honey..just move on…and your idol has to move on..it has been FOUR fcuking years…you all are looking more hidious, desperate and frrankly scary…like stalkers… just move on…
JP’s are a loving growing family..and nothing you can try to do is going to change that…poor pathetic thing..I feel for you but I am really hoping you can get help before you are served with a restraining order :)

Angelina Jolie Most Respected Celebrity Humanitarian Of 2007

Angelina Jolie has been voted the Most Respected Celebrity Humanitarian of 2007 for her work as a United Nations (UN) goodwill ambassador as well as being praised for her efforts to publicise suffering in Africa.

An online poll of 606 people, carried out by the Reuters news agency, put the Tomb Raider star ahead of U2 frontman Bono, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

Peter Walker, director of the Feinstein International Famine Centre at Tufts University, commented: “People aren’t stupid. They can really sense when it’s just an endorsement and when somebody really means it.

“Someone like Angelina Jolie comes across as having more integrity than some celebrities and a greater sense that she doesn’t just do this for the publicity.”

“She does this in a very low-key way,” said UNHCR spokesman Peter Kessler.

“She goes out to see for herself, to get up close and very personal. She doesn’t travel with film crews, and I think that is real testimony to her dedication to the cause.”

awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

Finally. Come on we need more people in the media to stand up. Does anyone know what Tilda said last year about the media.

Celebrity etiquette: A humanitarian tour of duty can help save the world

Gone are the days when attending a benefit ball counted as celebrity charity work. Today’s stars take direct action. Mick Jagger has stumped up the cash for a video shot in a refugee camp for a new single to raise awareness of the situation in Darfur. The song’s by hip-hop duo Mattafix, but the promo features Scarlett Johansson, Matt Damon and Kanye West.

Angelina Jolie is now as famous for her charity work as for her acting. On a recent visit to Iraq, she said: ‘It’s absolutely essential that the ongoing debate about Iraq’s future include plans for addressing the enormous humanitarian consequences these people face.’ More people probably listened than if a politician had made a similar statement.

It’s not just the A-list that care: James Nesbitt has vowed to visit war-torn areas of Africa annually as a Unicef ambassador. Ross Kemp filmed a report from Afghanistan. Though his most chilling pronouncement was: ‘I still consider myself first and foremost an actor. I want to go back to acting.’ And Jude Law made a BBC documentary to raise awareness about problems in Afghanistan.

Critics say these humanitarian efforts are self-serving, but no one can deny these celebs have publicised important issues. We do wonder what some of the affected think, though. Madonna recently celebrated Jewish New Year in Israel. She met president Shimon Peres and told him: ‘I am an ambassador for Judaism.’ Cue a collective Jewish shudder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2007/sep/30/features.magazine17

DECENCY @ 11/21/2008 at 8:54 pm
Tilda thanked her PR Manager for getting her the Oscar in her acceptance speech.

Entertainment Weekly magazine:

The 50 Sexiest Movies Ever!

3. MR. & MRS. SMITH (2005)

The power couple as action heroes: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a movie about John and Jane, married assassins who must take each other out with really big guns, which ends up turning them on — on screen and in real life, as it happened.

Sexiest Moment Angry, aroused, and armed to the teeth, they hit the dance floor to surreptitiously pat each other down. Quips hubby to his touchy-feely wife: ”That’s all John, sweetheart.”

Via BaFans
___________________

The HAG is not gonna be pleased… LOL!

Angelina Jolie the most intelligent Human being on the planet !
Angelina Jolie……. RULES !

awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ahhhhhhhhhh…thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!! WELL SAID AND SO SPOT ON.

The top 14 international celebrity humanitarians

The results of Hello! Canada’s exclusive global poll is revealed in the issue hitting newsstands starting today; one big-hearted Canadian make the list

TORONTO, Oct. 5 /CNW/ – From the first star-studded AIDS fundraising dinner hosted by Elizabeth Taylor to the current humanitarian efforts of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, celebrity philanthropy has gone far beyond the concept of reaching into one’s pocket. This is the age of participation, and with that in mind, Hello! Canada conducted an online poll over a two-month period to find out who Hello! readers – in Canada and all over the world – felt were the most admirable celebrity humanitarians.

This week, Hello! readers will be given a glimpse into the charity work
of the 14 stars they voted the most generous, with a 13-page photo spread of these celebs in action.

The top spot goes to celebrity duo Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, who can be credited with humanizing the plight of Africa’s many poor countries.

Anyone who suggests pop stars can’t change the world need only glance at the record of Bono, in the No. 2 spot, who has been recognized for his work in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Composer, singer, author and actor Sting takes the No. 3spot for his various contributions to charity, including his dedication to theenvironment.

Other names on the list include Oprah Winfrey, Bill and Melinda Gates,

Sir Elton John and, of course, our very own Bryan Adams, who placed No. 11 for his involvement in innumerable charitable organizations. This year, he becamethe first Western artist to perform in Karachi, Pakistan, with a benefit concert to help underprivileged children.

The complete list of winners can be found in the issue of Hello! magazine hitting newsstands this week.

Oh wow! Time Inc. vs. The New York Times? Bring it on. I want a ringside seat.

I would love to see the Times eating crow over this one.

52 Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm

Our donations to charity remain anonymous because we’re not famous. When very famous people donate, the media finds out and reports it, or these famous donors announce it themselves. That is not a bad thing. Hopefully it encourages more people to donate too.
As for what she does for the UN refugee agency, it’s part of the job that it gets widely reported, complete with pictures.

Nobody has said that AJ can do no wrong. You don’t have to praise her. In fact, I don’t understand why you’re even here posting about her since you don’t like her. I can see you expressing your dislike once or twice, and then go away, but you seem obsessed and fascinated by her. You can’t ignore her! :smile: Btw, I don’t drink kool-aid.

candy @ 11/21/2008 at 6:22 pm Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm

I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?
——-
Tell the same thing to Bill Gates!
——-
Great comment!!! Also Warren Buffet and Ted Turner. Of course the idiots only target Angie.

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:20 pm

Angie claims the only paper she take seriously is the New York Times!!
bwhahahahaah the delicious irony!

we love and respect your work Angie, thanks for being a leader and helping people who can’t help themselves. god bless you and your family. you are beautiful inside and out.

The New York is a credible newspaper. I can’t see why they would have any investment or reason to purposely try to make Jolie look bad by printing untruths. People Mag is one step above a tabloid and is on the defense because the Times made them look bad. i would say People is being less than candid and self-serving in printing this response.

161 bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 8:24 pm awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

RIGHT ON. Very good Post from Chris. Everyone knows Huvane and company flood People Magazine and Blogs with Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen’s every move. This hatchet job by NYT was instigated by people that do not like that AJ is the biggest star in the Universe without PR representation and some greedy agent. More Power to the Jolie.
——-
Ditto!

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:29 pm

Berliner Photo

Is the New York Times on Team Aniston? It would seem so, judging from this article that examines Angelina Jolie’s crafty ways with the media.

The story explores how Angie manipulates crucial media moments in order to portray herself more favorably—all without the help of a publicist. This may seem pretty obvious to even the most casual tabloid reader, but we’ll give the Times room to make their case.

For example, remember when she was a crazy blood-vial-necklace enthusiast who had sex with husband Billy Bob Thornton in the limo on the way to a red carpet event and then told reporters all about it? Well, after she decided she was done with that and the couple divorced, Us asked for an interview. She declined, but reportedly did offer a time and place where she would be hanging out with Maddox in public, so the mag could snap a few pictures of her looking like a single, young mom who was struggling to enjoy some private time with her son.

Or how about that time she fell in love with Brad Pitt while he was married to Jen?

Yeah, that was a mess, but it was also the perfect time for Angie to visit Pakistan for a tour of Afghan refugee camps and Brad to visit Kashmir to bring attention to the earthquake victims.

Angie’s philanthropic adviser Trevor Neilson dismisses any connection between those two events, telling the Times, “People don’t realize the complexity of what Angie is doing. A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media.”

Right on for charity work, but when she is in front of the media, the timing is definitely convenient.

As far as the baby-picture selling goes, the Jolie-Pitts seem to be very involved in the editorial process. In order to win the privilege of paying $14 million for pictures of the twins this past August, People reportedly had to submit an “editorial plan” for the layout, promise to never use the moniker Brangelina and guarantee positive coverage would be positive forever. Breaking any of these rules is punishable by, er, death?

Anyone surprised? Yeah, didn’t think so. It’s more surprising the Times cares so much, but they have to keep it fresh over there. In other Team Aniston news, the Daily Beast just came out as a supporter, so once again we’re going to have to give Jen the win this week.

Has the NYT writer of the article met Angelina?

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/poor-needy-pathetic-desperate-jen/

Poor needy pathetic desperate Jen

How did Jennifer Aniston, once America’s Sweetheart, morph into America’s Spinster?
Tags: Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston

Poor needy pathetic desperate Jen

Vogue editor Anna Wintour knows how to sell magazines, which explains the “What Angelina Did Was Very Uncool” line on the cover of the December issue next to Jennifer Aniston’s face. The quote was lifted from an interview in which the former Friends star was asked about Angelina Jolie’s gushing to the magazine in 2007 about falling in love with Brad Pitt while he was still hitched to her. Playing Aniston’s first public comment about Jolie so boldly was a master stroke destined to generate epic buzz.

For Aniston, though, the incident ushered in yet another of the “Poor Jen! Duped again!” moments that have dogged her since her 2005 divorce from Pitt. Not only did Vogue exploit Aniston’s tepid smackdown, making her appear obsessed with the siren who stole her husband, it squared the two women off against one another more subtly. Astute fashionistas were quick to note that the cover image of Aniston posed on a beach in a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Narciso Rodriguez gown echoed the cover shot of Jolie in January 2007 in which she rocked a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Bill Blass against a sandy backdrop. Jolie’s cover line, however, was a more triumphant “Why Her Real Life is More Romantic Than Any Movie.” The disparity continued inside: in 2007, Jolie was shown with Pitt and their numerous children; in the current issue, Aniston is pictured with her dog Norman.

Aniston’s Vogue appearance is part of a publicity blitz for her two new movies, Marley & Me, which opens on Dec. 25, and He’s Just Not That Into You, which arrives in February. Neither role, it’s safe to say, will eclipse the one she currently plays in the cultural imagination—that of the archetypal Wronged Wife subject to an endless loop of “Jen Is Devastated!” “Jen Is Furious!” “Jen Gets Revenge!” bogus theorizing. Since her divorce, America’s Sweetheart has morphed into America’s Spinster. The unmarried, childless Aniston has become the tabloids’ Miss Havisham, portrayed as lonely, needy and locked in the past. The website Dlisted.com recently advertised a US$19.95 “Boyfriend Arm Pillow” thus: “Now, every time the Jennifer Aniston in your life calls you, wanting to whine for hours about how they are so f–king lonely and their cats are even giving them the side-eye, you can simply say, ‘Aniston in my life, go canoodle with the Boyfriend Arm Pillow I got you for Christmas.’ ” Celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com refers to her cruelly as “Maniston.”

Her alleged tribulations sell big time. “We can’t get enough of her,” says Dina Sansing, entertainment director at US Weekly, where every issue features at least one Aniston photo or story. She’s No. 2 on the “Most Valuable Celebrity Faces” of 2008 list in terms of newsstand sales, according to Forbes. (In a rare case of tabloids imitating life, “Poor Jen!” was knocked off her No. 1 perch this year by Jolie.) Women relate to her, says Sansing, a bond that dates back to 1994 when Aniston entered homes as flaky, likeable Rachel Green. Female fans flocked to copy Aniston’s haircut, known as “The Rachel.” And now they rally to share her pain—as well as a schadenfreude thrill.

Aniston’s position atop the tabloid pantheon was cemented with her union with Pitt, whom she met Hollywood cute in 1998 through their mutual agent. The merger of America’s Sweetheart and the World’s Sexiest Man in 2000 was a lavish event that featured a 40-person gospel choir and fireworks over the Pacific. They were the king and queen of the Hollywood prom, with matching tans and blond streaks. When they split Aniston was poised for post-Friends career breakout; initially she was the one blamed for being unwilling to “have Brad’s babies,” to employ tabloid lexicon. When Jolie’s involvement became known, Aniston became the object of sympathy, and pity. After all, what chance did the Girl Next Door have against the Girl From the Next Galaxy? The New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane summed up perception of Jolie’s snaring of Pitt: “She took one look at the world’s most widely desired man and scooped him up with no more ado than a Parisian grande dame tucking a chihuahua into her clutch bag.”

The scandal was likened to Eddie Fisher leaving Debbie Reynolds for Elizabeth Taylor in the ’60s. But back then there wasn’t a celebrity media complex ready to pounce on Reynolds’ every humiliation, real or imagined. For the wounded Aniston, the salt poured down, beginning with an arty 60-page photo spread in the June 2005 W titled “Domestic Bliss,” in which Pitt and Jolie presided over a band of little blond Brads.

Aniston shot back with a tearful Vanity Fair interview in which she admitted to being hurt and lonely and denied rumours that she didn’t want children: “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will!”

The trendy L.A. store Kitson capitalized on the conflict, selling “Team Aniston” and “Team Jolie” T-shirts. “Team Aniston” outsold 25-t

cc #191

Not likely, but I’m sure he’s met Huvane.

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:20 pm
_______________________________________

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know what ironic, the time and effort you waste on someone you don’t even like. Angelina Jolie owns you’re ass!

piper, with a low @ 11/21/2008 at 9:40 pm

# 172 bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 8:49 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unbelievable!

I went over to Oprah’s website and some of those b*tches acted like Brad’s sole life purpose was to talk about ___.

Oprah’s been on for nearly 25 years and it’s like these women don’t know that divorce is a fact of life.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/poor-needy-pathetic-desperate-jen/

Vogue editor Anna Wintour knows how to sell magazines, which explains the “What Angelina Did Was Very Uncool” line on the cover of the December issue next to Jennifer Aniston’s face. The quote was lifted from an interview in which the former Friends star was asked about Angelina Jolie’s gushing to the magazine in 2007 about falling in love with Brad Pitt while he was still hitched to her. Playing Aniston’s first public comment about Jolie so boldly was a master stroke destined to generate epic buzz.

For Aniston, though, the incident ushered in yet another of the “Poor Jen! Duped again!” moments that have dogged her since her 2005 divorce from Pitt. Not only did Vogue exploit Aniston’s tepid smackdown, making her appear obsessed with the siren who stole her husband, it squared the two women off against one another more subtly. Astute fashionistas were quick to note that the cover image of Aniston posed on a beach in a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Narciso Rodriguez gown echoed the cover shot of Jolie in January 2007 in which she rocked a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Bill Blass against a sandy backdrop. Jolie’s cover line, however, was a more triumphant “Why Her Real Life is More Romantic Than Any Movie.” The disparity continued inside: in 2007, Jolie was shown with Pitt and their numerous children; in the current issue, Aniston is pictured with her dog Norman.

Aniston’s Vogue appearance is part of a publicity blitz for her two new movies, Marley & Me, which opens on Dec. 25, and He’s Just Not That Into You, which arrives in February. Neither role, it’s safe to say, will eclipse the one she currently plays in the cultural imagination—that of the archetypal Wronged Wife subject to an endless loop of “Jen Is Devastated!” “Jen Is Furious!” “Jen Gets Revenge!” bogus theorizing. Since her divorce, America’s Sweetheart has morphed into America’s Spinster. The unmarried, childless Aniston has become the tabloids’ Miss Havisham, portrayed as lonely, needy and locked in the past. The website Dlisted.com recently advertised a US$19.95 “Boyfriend Arm Pillow” thus: “Now, every time the Jennifer Aniston in your life calls you, wanting to whine for hours about how they are so f–king lonely and their cats are even giving them the side-eye, you can simply say, ‘Aniston in my life, go canoodle with the Boyfriend Arm Pillow I got you for Christmas.’ ” Celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com refers to her cruelly as “Maniston.”

Her alleged tribulations sell big time. “We can’t get enough of her,” says Dina Sansing, entertainment director at US Weekly, where every issue features at least one Aniston photo or story. She’s No. 2 on the “Most Valuable Celebrity Faces” of 2008 list in terms of newsstand sales, according to Forbes. (In a rare case of tabloids imitating life, “Poor Jen!” was knocked off her No. 1 perch this year by Jolie.) Women relate to her, says Sansing, a bond that dates back to 1994 when Aniston entered homes as flaky, likeable Rachel Green. Female fans flocked to copy Aniston’s haircut, known as “The Rachel.” And now they rally to share her pain—as well as a schadenfreude thrill.

Aniston’s position atop the tabloid pantheon was cemented with her union with Pitt, whom she met Hollywood cute in 1998 through their mutual agent. The merger of America’s Sweetheart and the World’s Sexiest Man in 2000 was a lavish event that featured a 40-person gospel choir and fireworks over the Pacific. They were the king and queen of the Hollywood prom, with matching tans and blond streaks. When they split Aniston was poised for post-Friends career breakout; initially she was the one blamed for being unwilling to “have Brad’s babies,” to employ tabloid lexicon. When Jolie’s involvement became known, Aniston became the object of sympathy, and pity. After all, what chance did the Girl Next Door have against the Girl From the Next Galaxy? The New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane summed up perception of Jolie’s snaring of Pitt: “She took one look at the world’s most widely desired man and scooped him up with no more ado than a Parisian grande dame tucking a chihuahua into her clutch bag.”

The scandal was likened to Eddie Fisher leaving Debbie Reynolds for Elizabeth Taylor in the ’60s. But back then there wasn’t a celebrity media complex ready to pounce on Reynolds’ every humiliation, real or imagined. For the wounded Aniston, the salt poured down, beginning with an arty 60-page photo spread in the June 2005 W titled “Domestic Bliss,” in which Pitt and Jolie presided over a band of little blond Brads.

Aniston shot back with a tearful Vanity Fair interview in which she admitted to being hurt and lonely and denied rumours that she didn’t want children: “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will!”

what = what’s

Completely bogus..I agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a conspiracy theory behind this. Hint: a lot of people are envious about the Brange; some are haters. They publish something like this which is totally irrelevant..not even news-worthy. People like Brange are treated like public property and they’re not. They, among others(businessment, politician, anyone in the public eye) has every right to control their own images. I think Angie and Brad just wants their private lives to be private and controls what they want the public to know about them and that is ok. They also want to turn things around ..so aside from reading about them..you also gain awareness of the countries/charity work that they’re helping out. I’m just amazed at the hype this article has generated. Remember JA at the Ivy? Wasn’t the papz informed hours before that she was coming? And there’s other millions of instances when other stars have manipulated the media?? Why is it only the Brange that’s relevant to this author? And based on the article…there’s a personnel from People that should be fired for this. The author got an undisclosed source from People? from dozens of people who worked with the Brange? Really? Is he for real? He can’t even make up his mind to admire or hate the Brange? He even had to recount Angie’s past? Wow…this person is really a moron…sorry..not buying it and not changing my opinion about the Brange. I just simply admire them and their works. I’m pretty sure the Brange has done more than this manipulative writer to help people in need.

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:44 pm

Angelina Jolie said last year that if there’s gossip about her or her family she’s not likely to worry about it unless it’s in the NY Times. The NY Times has a story about Angelina today and it’s not that positive. It’s all about how the 33 year old actress and mother of six uses the press to manipulate her public image. It looks like that same press is starting to buck the trend. Angelina isn’t all that different from other celebrities who employ the same methods to ensure positive coverage, they say, except she does it mostly on her own and doesn’t use a team of PR experts.

Angelina’s masterful manipulation of her public image all started when she first split up with Billy Bob and arranged for the paparazzi to take photos of her out with Maddox. It continues to this day, with Angelina and Brad dictating the terms to the magazines that buy rights to their family photos. In fact the $14 million deal with People for the twin baby photos is said to have included the stipulation that they never use “Brangelina” again and that they always have glowing reports about the couple ad infinitum. This isn’t Star reporting this either, it’s the NY Times, although they do quote Star’s editor so who knows if they’re adhering to high journalistic standards. It’s all kind of blending together lately.

Angelina Jolie does a lot of good, but she also takes credit for it and it could be part of her strategy to be seen as a caring mother at this phase of her life. She definitely seems like someone who genuinely cares about other people, but she’s also rather cunning and the press is calling her on it. There’s been a mild backlash against her since she’s been doing so much publicity for her movie and blathering on about her family. People are interested in her and she wants to talk so it’s been working out pretty well for her so far though. As long as she learns to step back a little as she keeps saying she’ll do, the press will come around again.

While doing research for this story I came across this unintentionally funny quote that Ann Curry wrote about Angelina’s charity work. It seems over the top and like it really doesn’t reflect reality:

How common is it to find someone who embraces the idea that any true gift is given anonymously? Angie’s like that, not wanting to publicize her efforts, unless some greater good might come of it.

Now people stop me to say how much they admire her, how she inspires them.

I have concluded that Angie represents the transformation that is possible in all of us, when we step outside our own suffering, and open ourselves to the suffering of others.

[From MSNBC]

How could people admire Angelina if she did give anonymously? As it is, we get press releases from the Jolie-Pitt Foundation. They’re doing a lot of good but it’s hardly anonymous.

Here are photos of Brad and Angelina in Africa with Maddox in April, 2005. It’s said to be a “secret vacation.” If that’s true then how did a photographer get there? Credit: Bauergriffinonline.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:44 pm

# 33 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:53 pm
# 34 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:54 pm

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4093#comment-32684

No offense, whoever you are, but could you at least give ME credit for finding the oringal Awards Daily posts to begin with? I’m the one who posted them on the other thread…and don’t bother to say you got them off the Awards site yourself because there’s an error in the original copying I did and it’s duplicated in post #34!

Sheesh…credit hogs…can’t keep ‘em, can’t kill ‘em…

you’re = your

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:20 pm —-well you twit with an IO of 80 or 90 the most..Let’s see if your IQ can comprehend…..It’s that NYT stooped to level of the raggazines to make money off the JP’s. OMG we are talking about NYT….and the as@hole is quoting Bonni Fuller….is he fcuking kidding me????..Oyyy NYT is is quoting Fuller as a legit quote…ROTFLMAO :lol: how pathetheic is that, can they and tabloids and supposed legit media get get more sick….OK, the media ho…who is ******** anyone that gets in her 50 feet radious…is supposed to be handled with kid gloves b/c she is FOURTY and does not want kids but fakes it for 6 .years as if she does…we have all the interviews and videos pathetic liar JEN…

Soo Jen hens..you are some sick puppies…get a life or pray for X not to be dumped by JM again…oyy how embaressing… well maybe he’ll do it on ET instead of TMZ… :lol:

piper, with a low @ 11/21/2008 at 9:40 pm
Of course the hens were on this blog talking about how Brad Pitt was going to throw AJ under the best and talk about whiny X (can’t say Jen to much or you get moderated) for his movie. None of them came back to gloat.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:46 pm

# 36 fan @ 11/21/2008 at 5:56 pm

Oh for fcuk’s sake! This is ridiculous. This is the THIRD POST YOU COPIED WITHOUT CREDITING ME! Go find your own ironic rebuttals to the NYT and stop stealing the ones I found! Nobody likes a credit-stealer!

awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family…….

—————————————-
Excellent, intelligent post

Angelina Jolie said last year that if there’s gossip about her or her family she’s not likely to worry about it unless it’s in the NY Times.

bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahha
bwhahahahahahahahahahah
bwhahahhahahaha

Reposting @ 11/21/2008 at 9:53 pm

awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family.

Have people forgotten the exodus of every major media outlet and pap agency to Lake Como, Italy in 2006 because they thought a wedding was taking place? Or how about the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stories and crawls about a New Orleans wedding less than 8 months ago?

So again, I’m sorry — if I’m Angelina Jolie what are my choices again?

1) I can be chased down in the street for the elusive first photographs of my child which will endanger my family and fatten the photographer and that of American Media Inc (tabloid behomoth) OR…

2) I can arrange a pictorial in a benign reputable weekly like People, get paid 14 million and distribute it to people around the world in need – it may even actually SAVE LIVES.

Hmmmm…decisions, decisions. Well, since I have a BRAIN. I’m going the Angelina Saves Lives route.

Let’s examine the Halle Berry route. Halle decides not to publish any pictorials, stating her daughter will “not be a public figure.” The papz laugh in her face. Halle’s home and property get invaded by papz trying to take pics of her infant daughter. Halle then decides to give them what they want and go to the zoo and the park and let the papz have at. Well, the next week, the pictures come out and the tabloid papz and tabloid publishing companies make their millions on the backs of her and her child.

I saw the many pics & stories about baby Nalah in People, US, STAR and the Bauer Publications – they ran them a good month. What does Halle get in return? well…NOTHING.

Not even a promise to not do it again, because OF COURSE, the papz will be out tomorrow and the next day and the next – annoying Halle and her child once again.

You can kind of view it like this:

Halle = O

American Media Inc & Bauer Publishing (In Touch, Life & Style) STAR, Natnl Enquirer, US Magazine, People magazine = 20-30 MILLION

Via Angelina Jolie & the Jolie Pitt Foundation: Drs Without Borders, US Military Children’s Foundation, UNHCR, AIDS & Malaria Foundations in SE Asia and Ethiopia, Millenium Project, KIND (Nationwide Network of Lawyers Assisting Minor Refugee Children) = 10 MILLION

Oh, and the PR Agencies/Agents that take 15% of whatever Angelina Jolie makes = ZERO. Because Angelina has NO agent, NO CAA, NO ICM, NO PK. Just her. That’s 15% back in her pocket, or rather to whatever charitable noble foundation she desires to give it to.

Yes, and now you see why you’re getting these strategically timed and placed articles – it’s very clear why Angelina Jolie must be punished.

Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

Good for People Mag for standing up. They know where all the bodies are buried. I’m sure the People editor was fit to be tied, here he gets raked over the coals for publishing a 6 year old story about Angelina’s Cambodian son, and the orphanage he was in, and the poverty in that country….

…and he knows just last WEEK he’s taking calls from CAA & PR power mogul Huvane asking him to publish Jen & John at the Sunset Towers, and to please write how loving they seemed. Or worse yet, he’s being asked to run a piece on how Jen’s 4th nose job isn’t really cosmetic, it’s all about her deviated septum.

Yet he takes it in the gut, for publishing skyrocketing HIV infection rates in Ethiopia, along with Angelina’s pictures of her daughter Zahara?

Wake up Hollywood. Though you may claim, this page is turning into Perez Hilton, most people would say, that happened a long time ago. It’s true, very seldom do you get an Oscar winning actress who is topping both the tabloids as well as the critically acclaimed list. The last person may have been Julia Roberts, but when she was peaking, the media wasn’t as incestuous as it is now. You didn’t have papers of note, quoting tabloid editors known for their lies. You can choose to view Jolie and her level of fame as an anamoly and something you don’t need to deal with – but the same problems will exist whether you discuss her or not — and that is, at the end of the day, what truly makes this a story to pay attention to, is that she, one of the biggest stars in the world, is NOT OWNED by the Death Star.

She’s powerful, all by her little self. In my book, that’s a reason to be admired, not exposed or cut down.

Hence why she’s on page 1 of the NYT. “Scary Smart,” indeed.

When the NYT sinks to the level of a Rag, then there is not too much left to worry about. A rag is a rag.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:56 pm

# 79 African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 6:44 pm

ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!

Rotflmao! I looooooooooooooooves it!!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++

AG -

It’s like I posted on another site this morning – the media is just pissed that Angie is better at their job than THEY are. These are people who went to college for 4 years to learn the ins and outs of the biz…and along comes the upstart who graduated high school at 16, lived a while youth and was candid about it, grew up and decided to put an end to the one-way relationship she had with the media. The media hates it that Angie plays their game better than they do. For years she just did interviews to promote her movies, and as she said, she had no real purpose in life. But once she found a purpose she realized she could use the media’s (and the public’s) interest in her to achieve the greater goal of highlighting humanitarian issues. What’s ironic is that the media was perfectly happy to use her without regard for her personally…but when she turns the tables on them, THEN suddenly it’s a problem! They’re just jealous little b#tches who want to take their ball back now that they’re losing the game.

Incredible! Every one wants a piece of the money Angelina Jolie generates now. She is not done, au contraire! She has just been made bigger, more famous, more powerful

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

GOD BLESS THE JOLIE-PITTS!

NYToutedthemediaho @ 11/21/2008 at 9:54 pm
Your one troll mission is too funny. You clearly are not hurting AJ or the fans. worst have been written about AJ and she is still standing. Stating that she is smart and master of her career and image is a walk in the park.

Ace tomato @ 11/21/2008 at 9:59 pm

The New York Times isn’t fit to wipe anyone’s a**.

Come to think of it, that would be redundant.

Angelina is a wonderful person who cares deeply for others who are less fortunate. She is just trying to live her life and raise her family. It is not right that she is being attacked during the the time when award season is about to start.
All should look at the good that she does. She is an talented actress. I really don’t care the the stuff that NYT is writing. It does not change my opinion about her at all.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:00 pm

# 85 African Girl @ 11/21/2008 at 7:01 pm

Ted is an idiot, How can he say someone is finally listenting to his calling AJ out for something he also says other celebrities do?

What sense does that make???!!

++++++++++++++++

Ted is worse than an idiot – HE’S A JEALOUS IDIOT. I put 100% of Ted’s dislike of Angie down to the fact that she’s smarter than him and beats him at his own game. Brad had him barred from all the O13 PR events last year…but he, like X, is STILL kissing Brad’s ass. He constantly says things like “Brad’s a sweetie”. Yeah, he’s ANGIE’S “sweetie”…and therein lies the problem! Ted and X both need to get over it already!

NYToutedthemediaho

Whose interview or pictures would People, Time mag, NY Times or any of those sites you posted from preferred to have today, tomorrow or 10 years from now. Aniston or Jolie

If you and these hypocrites writing these articles are truthful it would be Jolie. Aniston’s Vogue mag raced through the internet because of her remark from Jolie. Very few cared what she said to the new york times. But people want to read,see and post anything having to do with Angelina.

Today the new york times just made Angelina more powerful. Thanks for clicking on Angelina name on all these sites. It just tells the owners of the sites to write more about her.

# 203 Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:46 pm —
Hey I know some JJ fans got on my case re giving credit about two years ago b/c I wanted someone to give credit where it was due …But that long ago….I really think it is the right thing to do …B/C someone takse the time to search for it or like you did last night scanned it for all of us and bdj hunts all those articles…it is JMHO necessary to give credit….

Whoa the hen is having a meltdown. Too funny.

#214

If you didn’t put up with a cheating husband to stay married, why the hell are you here whining about his cheating years after the divorce?

Vogue Payback @ 11/21/2008 at 10:07 pm

http://msn.jolienyt.com/html
November 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm 28

The latest NYT missive regarding Angelina’s media prowess, is definitely a hit. It’s payback and deflection regarding Jennifer Aniston’s Vogue interview which used Angelina’s name to kick up sales and interest in her doggie rom-com this month. That was a fail in every way imaginable, as Aniston was ridiculed for not only using Jolie, but the whole world was screaming, ‘Move On,’ and calling her a whiny, weak lame.

It didn’t help that Brad Pitt followed Aniston’s Oprah appearance in which she again talks ‘Brangelina,’ and didn’t say word one about Aniston. Double fail. So this nyt piece on Jolie, is in response to that whole brouhaha – it is a CAA, Huvane hit for Aniston their coddled TV cash cow & puppet. The Deathstar (aka CAA) VS Jolie.

They got to the ‘new’ LA based entertainment reporter and requested a hit on Jolie. Nice. Jolie may be smart, but they have the connections to really do her in if they want. Why would they want to? 15% of the Aniston millions. You can’t have Jen flame out because of a bad Wintour decision, so you get some NYT piece that digs up all Jolie’s old People mags featuring her kids. Odd, sure.

Notice how anytime Aniston and Huvane make a misstep (that has nothing to do with Jolie) we’ll usually see a Jolie smear immediately follow in the mainstream press.

Deflection, deflection, deflection.

The Deathstar is very close to facing a major defection.

new york tyms!ppprrrtttttt!

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:08 pm

# 93 Natascha @ 11/21/2008 at 7:09 pm

juju @ 11/21/2008 at 7:03 pm anonymous @ 11/21/2008 at 6:57 pm
________________________________

Ted C?? Man, you really are desperate aren’t you?

People mag?? So are you losers!!

+++++++++++++++++

ROTFLMAO. I’m a celeb in need of publicity…who would I rather have at my back -

- People magazine – subsidiary of Time, Inc., weekly circulation of 3.9MIL, known ass kissers but harmless, website that gets over 6MIL unique hits per day

- Ted C – piddly paid gossip columnist/blogger, fired former editor of a movie magazine, demoted former tv show reporter, cranky self-proclaimed “fagola” who can’t be trusted with your dog, let alone your reputation, website housed as part of a much larger site for a cable tv station, daily unique hits of about 27 trolls…

Hmmmmm….decisions, decisions, decisions…

Okay…call me silly…BUT…I’m going with the Peeps mag…

Stupid trolls…

Good evening to all BAMPZSKV fans. Just got home and what do I see People bytch slapping some really ugly person trying to make his bones by using Angie. Isn’t it just so wonderful how the truth always comes out. Peace

Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:10 pm I agree #36!! Angelina is nothing but a media ***** and if she really cared about ending the wold’s poverty, then she would give all of her money to the poor, quit acting, and free us from her ridiculous pseudoconcern for the fate of humanity. Why doesn’t she take some of the money she spends getting collagen stuffed into her lips and buy herself another 3rd world baby?

#####

Okay, this post goes into the Dumbest Post Hall of Fame.

Final analysis: Mush for brains LOL

New People Subscriber @ 11/21/2008 at 10:12 pm

I’m subscribing to People Mag today. :-D

I say all of us do the same, that can – and make sure you let them know why.

Shrink @ 11/21/2008 at 9:28 pm
The New York is a credible newspaper. I can’t see why they would have any investment or reason to purposely try to make Jolie look bad by printing untruths.
********************************************************************************************

Don’t kid yourself. They printed a viciously snarky article about Jolie right after her mother did and ate shít for days when their readers reacted.

Not to mention the whole Jason Blair debacle. He almost destroyed the credibility of the newspaper. It took them months to recover from that one. Google it for details.

Ooops… that should read right after her mother died.

groundcontrol @ 11/21/2008 at 10:15 pm

yoki @ 11/21/2008 at 6:21 pm # 46 whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes?

where do u come from? where i am leopards have spots. tigers have stripes. zebras have stripes. giraffes have spots. bumble bees have stripes. ladybugs have spots

############

LOL!! Thank you, Yoki, for that.

Whatevernitwit is hilarious. She’ll be flailing around all night.

Goodnight JP fans…many thanks for the links and great posts… Chat with you all tomorrow :-)

NYT needs to sell their newspaper….and who they turn to MS Angelina Jolie!!! And now they got soo much attention because of it…Ignore NYT!! They need Angelina Jolie!! I hope Angie won’t give them any interview. Or probably Angie turn them down!!!! NYT are desperate.

God Bless the Jolie-Pitt!

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:22 pm

# 133 Keep an Eye out for Deceivers @ 11/21/2008 at 7:53 pm

Boy, are you reaching. Name me one celebrity/millionaire who doesn’t get “something”/some kind of return out of their philanthropy. Good luck with that one. However, here’s the difference. What YOU see as their reward may not be the reward THEY see. Angelina gets more personal satisfaction in helping refugess than she gets from being on the cover of people or having the NY Times digging into her business or fans fawning over her. She gets satisfaction in teaching her children to give to others and be generous and thoughtful individuals. These are the EXACT same things that Bill Gates, Bono, etc., get out of their philanthropy work. The fact that all YOU can see is the material gain, is your problem, not Angie’s. She’s in Germany with her family right now living her life. You, on the other hand, are sitting here on a celeb blog btiching about her. Ironic, ain’t it?

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:27 pm

# 136 thelookoflove1365 @ 11/21/2008 at 8:00 pm

So Ted Casa bakla still thinks he’s in the know? A mutual friend relayed to him? Bahahahah! It’s nice of him to scour blogs and internets, read ragazines and then write about it as if he talked to some one with the real insider knowledge. Ted is prolly the one with drug problems, based on these stories/fictions he keep on writing.

++++++++++++++++++++

I’m glad I’m not the only one who got a chuckle out of Ted C saying “a mutual friend”. Ted doesn’t have “friends”. He has people he uses as sources. That’s NOT friendship. That’s USERY. Someone needs to explain the diff to Ted!

Seriously though – the very idea that Ted would have a common friend with Brad and Angie slays me. What person in their right minds is “friends” with a gossip columnist? Sooner or later that person is going to use info you asked him not to and your ass is going to be in hot water. Ted doesn’t have any “friends”!

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:29 pm

# 139 DECENCY @ 11/21/2008 at 8:03 pm

See how low the NY Times has gone, Ted C thinks his work is equal to what they write

++++++++++++++++

Oh snap! You’re dead on. Oh how the mighty have fallen. If I’m the NYT reporter I’d be saying, “Fcuk! Now Ted C thinks I’m as low as he is!” An endorsement from Ted is NOT anything to write home about…

They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.

She’s powerful for sure, but what are they so afraid of – an enemy that travels the world calling attention to atrocities and helping to svae lives?

Angelina Jolie’s example says that you can be the most famous woman alive, and rule all media and get an Oscar nomination all while having NO PR representation, then the reason for this nyt piece becomes OBVIOUS:

Ruin her charitable efforts, revise history and make sure she doesn’t get a nod.

The purpose of this article is for people to see Jolie as this super smart media mastermind, and they want people to know, that while Jolie may be capable of doing it, the average person she is not (hence the “scary smart” type language).

It’s the PR agency message to other new and existing talent in Hollywood, you DO need us…you won’t get the press you need, nor will you get the award noms either, if you follow Jolie’s example.

It’s a threat. A warning.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 10:32 pm

groundcontrol @ 11/21/2008 at 10:15 pm

yoki @ 11/21/2008 at 6:21 pm # 46 whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 6:13 pm People please. Do you honestly think a leopard can change it’s stripes?

where do u come from? where i am leopards have spots. tigers have stripes. zebras have stripes. giraffes have spots. bumble bees have stripes. ladybugs have spots

############

LOL!! Thank you, Yoki, for that.

Whatevernitwit is hilarious. She’ll be flailing around all night.

______________________________________________

I admit I said stripes instead of spots. I’m not flailing by the way. We honest people can admit when we are wrong but can Angie? You people are insane. You are so happy to just sit around waiting on her to adopt/have another child. Does she attend to all these children? No… She has nannies to do it. Why would you adopt/have more unless it is a media ploy. Please people grow up. She crazes attention and people like yourself are more than willing to give it to her.

jared just post another article from NYT about Aniston!!! oh oh oh..tsk tsk tsk…they are trying to sabotage Angie!!!
I rather post here than post on that article. NYT times are desperate and losers. They are going down together with aniston.

You and me @ 11/21/2008 at 10:37 pm

No one is shocked or surprised. Everyone in the business, yes even bloggers know that stars manipulate the media all of them do it.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The calling out of angelina only says one thing: CAA
Why only angelina is attacked and Brad gets a free pass when we all know he does the same thing?
One more time CAA

It’s the simple mistakes troll that show that you are ranting just to rant. Facts help in making an case.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 10:32 pm
_____________________________________

You know what you need to “grow”? A brain. My god, you people are stupid.

If Angelina wanted “atention” she didn’t need to put her life in danger or adopt kids. She just needed to do as all other actress do and go to parties, fashions shows, hollidays… and kiss all HW people and media asses.

You and me @ 11/21/2008 at 10:41 pm

Ted Casablanca “source” is George Clooney and Jules Asner but clooney knows nada about angelina.
Ted has no real sources. There was a time, long long ago when Ted was a power house in the gossip world like Perez is now.

WASHINGTON POST ROCKS! @ 11/21/2008 at 10:43 pm

WASHINGTON POST is my fave @ 11/21/2008 at 10:25 pm

JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!
JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!
JOLIE is TEAM WASHINGTON POST!

She writes for the WASHINGTON POST every now and then.

I will subscribe to People mag and Washington Post.

cnn @ 11/21/2008 at 10:31 pm They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.

She’s powerful for sure, but what are they so afraid of – an enemy that travels the world calling attention to atrocities and helping to svae lives?

Angelina Jolie’s example says that you can be the most famous woman alive, and rule all media and get an Oscar nomination all while having NO PR representation, then the reason for this nyt piece becomes OBVIOUS:

Ruin her charitable efforts, revise history and make sure she doesn’t get a nod.

The purpose of this article is for people to see Jolie as this super smart media mastermind, and they want people to know, that while Jolie may be capable of doing it, the average person she is not (hence the “scary smart” type language).

It’s the PR agency message to other new and existing talent in Hollywood, you DO need us…you won’t get the press you need, nor will you get the award noms either, if you follow Jolie’s example.

It’s a threat. A warning.

————————

EXACTLY !!!! I hope Angie get a Oscar nom this year. which she probably getting a big chance , that ‘s why the PR agency are nervous and start this smear campaign. by bribing some of this wannabe journalist. Media are becoming like a Mafia org. so don’t believed every thing they write. when come to certain topic, they are so objective and bias, and they do play a big part in the down fall of the great USA.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:45 pm

# 157 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm

Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

+++++++++++++++

BRAVO! And A-effin’-MEN! I don’t know who this Chris Good is, but good for him. ITA 110% on so many levels…starting with Halle Berry’s naivete and yes, stupidity! I said earlier this morning and I’ll say it again – Go on Angie (and Brad) with your bad ass self! This NYT article was like punishment for making the media work FOR her.

In the past celebs have had to bend over and let the media have their way with them and THEN they MIGHT get a positive story. But in this case it’s simple economics – supply and demand. Angie’s got the Golden Uterus. She’s being stalked and hunted all over the earth…so why shoudn’t she and Brad and their humanitarian work benefit from the interest in them? It really pisses me off that someone like JLo can sell ther baby pix for $5MIL…and nobody is asking, “Where’d the money go?” But Angie? It’s, “They SAID the money was going to their foundation…” Where’s an article on JLo pocketing millions off the fruits of her uterus and her hubby still owing as many millions in back taxes? Oh yeah, JLo is 5 years ago’s news, so the media doesn’t give a shite. Only Angie matters…and for that reason she MUST be punished. Or so says the media.

208 voe @ 11/21/2008 at 9:56 pm

Incredible! Every one wants a piece of the money Angelina Jolie generates now. She is not done, au contraire! She has just been made bigger, more famous, more powerful.
——-
So true, and she does it all without a publicist.

whateverangie @ 11/21/2008 at 10:54 pm

Goodnight people. It was good debating with you. Team Aniston, Team Angelina! It is good to know we live in a country where we have freedom of speech. Love you all including Angelina. Keep up the good work Angie.

yeah miss dina…truth always comes out!

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 10:58 pm

# 179 QQQQ @ 11/21/2008 at 8:59 pm

Entertainment Weekly magazine:

The 50 Sexiest Movies Ever!

3. MR. & MRS. SMITH (2005)

The power couple as action heroes: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a movie about John and Jane, married assassins who must take each other out with really big guns, which ends up turning them on — on screen and in real life, as it happened.

Sexiest Moment Angry, aroused, and armed to the teeth, they hit the dance floor to surreptitiously pat each other down. Quips hubby to his touchy-feely wife: ”That’s all John, sweetheart.”

Via BaFans
___________________

The HAG is not gonna be pleased… LOL!

+++++++++++++++++++

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

No, 4Q…this one will be okay…cuz Angie didn’t say it herself. It’s only when Angie talks about Brad & M&MS that X has a problem with it. Waaa waaa weeeee…

NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS! @ 11/21/2008 at 10:58 pm

New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent

NEW YORK (AP) – New York Times Co. says its second-quarter earnings fell 82 percent from the year-ago quarter boosted by a one-time gain. Meanwhile, print advertising revenue continued to shrink.

The New York-based newspaper publisher says its quarterly net income dropped to $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share, which included 11 cents per share in buyout costs.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected income of 22 cents per share in the latest quarter. Analyst estimates typically exclude special items.

Revenue dropped 6 percent to $741.9 million, missing the average Wall Street estimate for $754 million. Ad revenue slipped down 11 percent, hurt mostly by fewer classified ads.

Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the “U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry.”

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS! @ 11/21/2008 at 11:00 pm

New York Times profits down 51%
Comments (0)

The New York Times company’s third-quarter profits were down by 51% on the same period last year, falling from $13.4m to $6.53m (£7.23/3.52). Revenue dropped 9%, with advertising sales falling 16%, much steeper than the 11% reduction in the first six months of the year.

Online revenue grew by only 6.7%, much lower than the 12% average growth rate in the previous six months. Meanwhile, the company announced that its debt now stands at about $1.1bn (£590m). It ain’t a pretty picture. (Via Washington Times/AP)

The vulture media are looking for another prey. it used to be Madonna,then Britney, now it’s Angelina.

while for politician, we had Hiliary Clinton and Sarah Palin. though, I don’t agree with Palin agenda but , gosh , the way the media treated her was just too much , too harsh and bias.

Thanks god , Angie had Brad , her 6 little angels , James, dear and close friends always at her side supporting and giving her strenght. If this constant microscrutinize of her words or action, regular harassment of press and razzie did not let her fall, she will survived !!!

Go Angie, Viva Angie !

Just logged on–so, I hope other JP fans are here–Hello! It’s about time People stood up for both Anglelina, Brad, and integrity. Nice story!

NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS! @ 11/21/2008 at 11:07 pm

NYTimes profits slide; S & P downgrades credit rating

The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.

The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

The company, which owns About.com, The Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune and 16 other daily newspapers besides the flagship The New York Times, said overall advertising revenue fell by 14.4 percent during the quarter.

Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times’s credit rating to “BB-,” or junk status, while Moody’s Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

Moody’s changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status. Both companies said the moves were based on the uncertain outlook for newspaper advertising.

Print advertising revenue has been declining at newspapers across the United States as circulation drops, more readers go online for their news and advertisers shift their dollars to the Internet.

The New York Times’s share price rose slightly on Wall Street on Thursday, gaining 0.19 percent to close at 10.70 dollars, but was down 3.74 percent to 10.30 dollars in after-hours trading.

The Times said print advertising revenue fell by 18.5 percent in the third quarter while online revenue from NYTimes.com and other websites rose by 2.5 percent.

“The decline in print advertising revenues this quarter accelerated as the economy slowed,” New York Times chief executive Janet Robinson said in a statement.

While print advertising revenue fell, online advertising revenue grew by 10.2 percent in the quarter to 74.4 million dollars, The New York Times said, and now accounts for 12.4 percent of revenue, up from 10.6 percent in the third quarter of 2007.

It said total revenue fell 8.9 percent in the quarter to 687 million dollars from 754.4 million in the same quarter last year.

Circulation revenue rose by one percent due to an increase in home-delivery and newsstand prices for the paper.

The company said it managed to reduce operating costs by 6.8 percent during the quarter and “given the adverse economic conditions, we will continue our strict cost discipline.”

The New York Times also indicated in its statement that it may cut its dividend. “Our board of directors plans to review our dividend policy before the end of this year to determine what is most prudent in light of the overall market conditions,” said Robinson.

It also said it was looking at writing down the value of assets in its New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, by 100 million dollars to 150 million dollars.

Copyright AFP 2008

===========================

Desperate NEW YORK TIMES needs those hits desperately!

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 11:08 pm

# 215 guli @ 11/21/2008 at 10:01 pm

# 203 Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 9:46 pm —
Hey I know some JJ fans got on my case re giving credit about two years ago b/c I wanted someone to give credit where it was due …But that long ago….I really think it is the right thing to do …B/C someone takse the time to search for it or like you did last night scanned it for all of us and bdj hunts all those articles…it is JMHO necessary to give credit….

++++++++++++++++

It really irked me tonight because I came across the Awards Daily posts by accident! LOL. I wasn’t even looking for stuff on that NYT article. I was looking to see if either of them had gone to the CCOBB screening last night. Turns out it had to be cancelled and rescheduled for tomorrow night. So I just happened to stumble across those posts…and took the time to copy and paste them to show that not everyone in the biz is blinded by what the NYT did. It’s not just Angie, it’s EVERYONE, but the media has it out for Angie because she’s doing it on her own terms.

Anyway…a little credit where cred it due, folks. Kindly remember that in the future…thanks…

72 Andrómeda @ 11/21/2008 at 6:38 pm Of course the NYT article was a lie.

Plus Angelina is one of the actresses who is more critize in magazines, they write lies about her every week in order to sell…
So i don´t understand why they are saying she is manipulative…
——-
AJ is smart! I see nothing wrong with being manipulative. Don’t we all say and do things every day to get what we want? We manipulate people. I do it all the time to get what I want. I find men easier to manipulate than women.

manipulate = cleverly handle, control, manoeuvre or influence. Nothing wrong with that, imo. As long as you don’t go too far. :lol:

You and me @ 11/21/2008 at 11:10 pm

The vulture media are looking for another prey. it used to be Madonna,then Britney, now it’s Angelina.

while for politician, we had Hiliary Clinton and Sarah Palin. though, I don’t agree with Palin agenda but , gosh , the way the media treated her was just too much , too harsh and bias.

Thanks god , Angie had Brad , her 6 little angels , James, dear and close friends always at her side supporting and giving her strenght. If this constant microscrutinize of her words or action, regular harassment of press and razzie did not let her fall, she will survived !!!

Go Angie, Viva Angie !
______________________________
The media hates powerfull women, the don’t have issues with men just with the ones with v a g i n a s :)

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 11:13 pm

# 232 cnn @ 11/21/2008 at 10:31 pm

They treat Angelina like she’s Hilary Clinton.

++++++++++++++++

I’ve said for years that there are 4 women who can divide a room in half like nobody’s busines – Angie, Madge, Hillary and Okra. They’re people you either love or hate – not a lot of middle ground for any of them.

As most of you know, sometimes the NYTimes is WRONG–as in their problems a few years ago with editors:

NEW YORK (CNN) — The New York Times Thursday announced the resignations of its two top editors — the latest bombshell in a journalistic melodrama since a rising star reporter was forced to resign for plagiarism.

Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd had been particularly criticized for their roles in the scandal surrounding the reporting of 27-year-old Jayson Blair, who quit the paper May 1.

Blair resigned after a Texas newspaper questioned whether he had plagiarized a story about the family of missing U.S. soldier Jessica Lynch. The Times ran a multipage self-examination of how the reporter managed to stay on staff after multiple errors and editors’ suspicions that his reporting was fraudulent.

In a news release, the newspaper said Joseph Lelyveld, 66, former executive editor of The Times, has been named interim executive editor, assuming the jobs of both men.

Raines, 60, led the paper to seven Pulitzer Prizes last year — several for the Times’ comprehensive coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Neither he nor Boyd, 52, would comment on their resignations.
____

Not only this time was the NY Times wrong, but a simple obituary for VERY famous Orson Welles, taled about his only SON Christopher, who actually happpened to be his DUAGHTER, Christopher.

It happens, fans– I had an aunt named “Cllifford,” for my grandmother’s favorite brother. The NY Times is not the “be all and end all” to news.

Passing Through @ 11/21/2008 at 11:16 pm

# 247 NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS! @ 11/21/2008 at 10:58 pm

New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent

++++++++++++++++++

LOL…and along comes an article on Angie…POSTED IN THE BUSINESS SECTION, NO LESS…

Coinkydink? Seems less likely the longer the day goes on…

always punished the good looking………ugly bit.ch! nah! nothing lift.

# 52 Um… @ 11/21/2008 at 6:20 pm bdj @ 11/21/2008 at 6:15 pm:
Yeah bdj, I do my part but unlike Angelina, I do it anonymously and from my heart, not outwardly and for my pocket. I’m not whining about anything, I just pity all of you Brangelina kool-aid drinkers who believe she can do no wrong. She does a lot of wrong, look into it and stop praising her already.
++++++++++++++
I pity anyone like you who convinces themselves that not only do they know the facts about someone elses personal life, but also has that “oh so sanctimonious” ability to pass judgement on everyone else.

Keep focusing on the perceived faults of others, that will distract you from having to look in the mirror and seeing the smug, spiteful, self-righteous beyotch staring back at you

Oops, I meant “talked,” “DAUGHTER,” and “Clifford.” Can’t blame these mistakes on anyone but myself. :-(

yeah…..she manage to manipulate brads ballz, giving him 6 kittens and 2 dogz .so hard to manipulate when ur ugly……unless u got huvane.

Can someone tell me please @ 11/21/2008 at 11:30 pm

Where is this picture from (the one Jared has up)????

Is it from a recent interview? If so, can someone post the link to the interview please?

I am glad we don’t have NYT here in the Philippines (for obvious reasons). NYT is a disgrace to New York for the simple reason that a publication carrying the name of the state is featuring “tabloidish” kind of journalism.

Economy must really hard and it affected NYT income, thus it resorted to evil means even by besmirching Angie’s reputation. It resorted to unverified sources and false stories just to create a negative image of the most popular woman in the world. NYT knew that anything written about Angie spells money. So it allowed some writer with apparent hidden agenda to write imaginary feature on Angie. What NYT miscalculated is the backlash this it might have caused. Now, this is being discussed all over the internet, blogs or what have you, and NYT motive is being questioned. NYT miscalculated that Angie is not just an ordinary celebrity /person but admired by well-respected VIPs, dignitaries, intelligent people etc. They underestimated Angie’s kindness, popularity, influence in the whole world. Some people may not like Angie but they don’t easily believe what NYT writes just because it is NYT. NYT is now a suspect for their subsequent articles. They will be scrutinized by readers. I won’t be even surprised if a number of readers will stop or withdraw their NYT subscriptions because of this.

People Mag’s response to NYT bogus article becomes interesting. It will turn to People (or other reputable publications) vs. NYT (and other tabloids). Jealousy on the part of NYT is what I think is behind all of this. It is a fact that People is making a lot of money and NYT is definitely is not very happy. So what better way to counter this is by attacking the very person (Angie) who they think is the major reason why People’s circulation is high. NYT is obviously threatened by People’s reputation & popularity.

Once again, this is an instance of ongoing battle between Good & Evil. NYT chose the dark road by judging a person’s motive of doing good deeds, by trying to undermine humanitarian work of Angie. I know, Angie will still survive this because her heart is pure & she’s on the good side. She will still continue her advocacy no matter what the cynics say.

NYT CAN’T JUST PUT A GOOD PERSON DOWN….. not with Angie, who has found her meaning purpose in life.

I believe the New York Times. There was also a article in a over-seas
paper last week that they were investigating charties. They have
been given 18 Million or more for pictures, also she is suppose to give 1/3 of her wages. Yet they published that they donated the amount shown by the Times in 2006 which is well below the
amount they earned. Is it shown on paper anywhere that he really
donated the money $5 million to New Orleans or is it the people
that have donated to his fund that are paying for it?

Holy sheeeeeit.

This pic of maniston made me gag….

http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2008/11/jennifer-aniston-nintendo-wii.jpg

Brad must give thanks every day.

Before you blindly say the New York Times is lying and printed a
false story, maybe you better wait and see what comes out of it.
If it isn’t true don’t you think they will be sued. I do. If Brad and
Angelina have really donated all that they say they then if shouldn’t
be hard for them to show their taxes returns and records showing
it. Remember Cambodia was saying that they didn’t get the money
that was pledge to them. I would be willing to bet that they aren’t
going to do anything but keep still.

So the NY Times is turning into a tabloid?
Glad that People speaks up.
There are so many sad people in this world who think nothing but the worst in people. I appreciate people who help humanity with their efforts or money. Anything for a good cause, I will support that!
Blessing to the Jolie-Pitts! I am so glad I saw them this week!

Alright! Let all talk about the state of NYT’s finances. This is the only way to fight back. The only way to let them know we the readers/fans are not stupid. Insead of defending/discussing Angelina, we should all talk about their sleezey motives. Money talks. I hope the NYT goes down, just like all the other sleezy media. Print media integrity is dead and gone!

Just curious, why is People Magazine printing this article on Just
Jared. Why isn’t there a story in their own magazine? I think that
would be more in line.

needs to be rejected! heheehe…along with the cover.

# 263 Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Moron!
Who said she is “supposed” to give 1/3 of her income to charity?

She simply DOES give 1/3 of her income to charity. She has absolutely NO obligation to. Yet that is never enough for people like you.

All her donations have been well documented by numerous INDEPENDENT agencies and foundations.

All of Brad’s donations and NOLA’s work is documented as well. Non-profit agencies documentation of donations and expenditures are a matter of public record.

The “investigation” is a figment of your imagination, something you have invented to try to create a controversy.

Hop your happy A$$ to “google” and do the research.

Sammy you are a f*cking moron…lmao…Angelina isn’t “supposed to give 1/3rd of her wages,” you f**king idiot – she does it because she WANTS to, just like Aniston gives 1/3 of her wages to Stephen Huvane, CAA, and her hair colorist, an expert in Peroxide…that’s not mandatory f*ckwad, that’s called CHOICE…yet you’d beat Angelina up for giving her money to impoverished children all over the world??!! I hope bad Karma is on you like whote on rice, and the Clay Aiken lookalike that is raining this silly trivial sh*t down on her out of nowhere…if people in Hollywood can’t see this for the smear job it is, they are worthless, and I hope she leaves and doesn’t ever come back. Brad can keep Angie pregnant and barefoot and raising babies…and you can be left with watching TV sit-com hack maniston’s bad schlocky rom coms and her tranny ugly face on the big screen as she tries yet again to be the new Katherin Heigl even as she deals with hot flashes and menopause. Hahahaha.

Oh please samho, get a f*cking life. Bill O’Reily who hated AJ with a passion did an investigation about her giving 1/3 of her salary to charity and all the work she has done, and even he had to change his tune when he found out she WAS telling the truth.

What don’t folks understand about the money from the Shiloh pics. Getty Images took care of it and distributed the money to charities that needed it.

Roger fatass Friedman, dug up their 2006 tax info and wrote an article about it showing where the money went.

Madonna had a charity event last yr for UNICEF with a gazzillion celebs and to this day no one knows where that money went but since u all have an hard on for AJ u all are questioning their charity endeavor.

I wish someone would come up with a date for us all when this craziness regarding Brad/Angie and Jen will end. I just want to know how long….

I don’t think some of the people on this post hate Angie as much as they claim. You would have to be a victim of some direct interaction with another for them to affect your life in this way. For the ardent Jen fans.. this thread has over 200 comments, still counting… Jen’s thread has 30 or 40+ by now. Why are you not there talking amongst yourselves. It is a true indication of how bad the economy is when the NY Times stoops to trashing a woman to sale papers. What have we come to. Everyone has a right to like or dislike whomever they want. But all this hate stems from a divorce that happened almost 4 years ago.. How many other divorces have happened since that divorce. How many other celebs have had scandal and relationships, as well as babies. Too many to count. But still the world and especially the web world is still fixated on Angie.

The magic and joy of life is how we grow and change. How we should become an aware person who opens our eyes and truly see what the world is and what it could be. I don’t know many celebs who are constantly having their past thrown in their face the way Angie’s is. We say that the past is the past.. This should apply to everyone, not just a select few. This woman did not kill anyone. She fell in love and started a family. Whatever she did with BBT, he was her husband. Brad and Jen are over.. Jennifer is a woman no different then any other. A role on TV does not make her too wonderful to get a divorce. I find it so strange that Angie and Brad have to live to a standard that no other celeb is expected to Every word they say, every move or action they make is analyzed to the tenth degree.

It would be nice if people would get a grip and let this crap go. If Jen is still holding on to this… Sad for her and her fans.

Angie and Brad have moved on and are living and loving their life, each other and their children.

Fans and haters should go back to their lives and do the same.

.

Report Abuse
# 247
NYT are in FINANCIAL MESS!

Well this explains part of the reason the NYT wrote that article. It’s all about the Benjamins.

Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times’s credit rating to “BB-,” or junk status, while Moody’s Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

Moody’s changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status. Both companies said the moves were based on the uncertain outlook for newspaper advertising.

I guess the New York Times should seek Angelina’s advise on how to rebuild their tarnished image.

Remember Cambodia was saying that they didn’t get the money that was pledge to them. I would be willing to bet that they aren’t going to do anything but keep still.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh. you mean the Cambodian guy who ripped AJ off for over $300,00 dollars. AJ and Brad employ over 70 people they pay every month at The Maddox Jolie-Pitt Millennium Project [where there are 6,000 villagers, a school, a soy milk factory, roads and a nature preserve], they also fund a health care clinic and 3 orphanages in Cambodia.

A few of their charity

MJP Foundation
http://www.mjpasia.org/mission.htm

Maddox Chivan Children’s Center (MCCC)
http://www.cambodianhealthcommittee.orgprojects_mccc.html

Jolie-Pitt Foundation Donates $2 Million to Global Health Committee to Fight HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis in Ethiopia
Grant will support first treatment program for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Ethiopia

MIR

Just logged on a few minutes ago. The scary face on JJ’s first page just about knock me off the chair. God, I hope I don’t have nightmare tonight!

Hola! Bonjour! Hi haterz!…the champ is here…

…and, it’s still cold as a witch’s *** outside…

…sit booboo, sit!…

Can someone tell me please @ 11/21/2008 at 11:30 pm

Where is this picture from (the one Jared has up)????

Is it from a recent interview? If so, can someone post the link to the interview please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw4xv_14VM

The folks that really matter appreciate what the J-Ps are doing. So FU to everyone else

_________________________

Samlaut district resident, Surs Moeurn, has had a difficult and unstable life. A former monk and soldier, Moeurn, now 50 years old, lost his sight and both his hands to a landmine. His injuries make it extremely difficult for him to provide for his family. For almost 20 years, between 1984 and 2001, Moeurn lived in a plastic tent with his wife and two children in extreme conditions. With little food throughout most of the year, his children could not attend school as they needed to help him tend to the meager crops in the field.

Recently, this all changed for Surs Moeurn and his family. With assistance from MJP, who provided them with a proper house, a plot of land, a cow and other necessary equipment, Surs Moeurn can now build a better life for his family. “My dream comes true, Mrs. Angelina Jolie is like my parents”, he said. “My life is now meaningful, I have enough food, my kids can go to school, I have cow for reproduction and land for cultivation,” he added. Moeurn still worries about his children, his income is irregular due to his handicap, but he is in a much better place to be able to provide a healthy future for them.

So, this is how it works:

Huvane calls up the NYT, asks them to do a piece on maniston, in it she promotes corporate products like blackberry, facebook, and Wiii, in her inevitable boring, lame interview. It’s a tired snore of a read, but she’s in the mag which is all they care about. Aniston will write Huvane a check for 15% of her gross – which is most likely about 5 million annually for arranging her nyt piece and all other press for ’08, which includes enumerable staged photos on the beach with John Gayer and to restablish her as ‘sexy at 40.’ Additional stagings will occur on a regular basis at The Ivy, Sole, Sunset Towers and other papz hotspots.

Conversely, Angelina who is being chased all over the planet, papz hiding in bushes, drilling holes in her hospital room while she was pregnant, trespassing on her son’s schoolgrounds, and burying themselves in the dirt on her property, decides to beat the papz and tabloids to the punch, and take the edge off the dangerous ‘first pics,’ frenzied chase, by arranging the family’s own pictorial. In it they dicuss their next charitable endeavor, an AIDS and malaria clinic in Ethiopia, to which the 14 million will help pay, along with homes for the MIR campaign, US military children’s foundations, and Iraqi war refugees.

Angelina’s press is dissected up the wazoo for her noble causes that help humanity, while Aniston apparently gets a free pass on her banal sh*t plugging for various billion dollar entities (why plug genocide in Darfur when you can plug Wii and maybe get a free gaming unit for the boy that’s pizzzing on you every night? LOL) Aniston actually employs agencies and Huvane to operate for her on a 24/7 basis..but shhhhhh….we’re supposed to believe that Huvane had nothing to do with it, and that Aniston is so wonderful and so in demand, that she just got a call out of the blue on her cell from the nyt mag, asking her to please come down and do a photoshoot and a trivial interview about nothing.

Angelina, despite raising 6 kids, doing her UN work, her CFR work, her critical acclaim in movies, her giving birth, her burying her mother, her supporting Brad – her fulfilling her own professional obligations – also has time to be as effective as CAA and control her own press…even the tabloids according to aol. lololol Yes, people behind blogs are so dumb nowadays, they don’t even bother to read the original articles they skim it, and write their own bullshit which says Angelina tells the tabloids what to write (popeater) – which by the way has amassed 300 replies already.

Jolie is ‘spiking,’ boards and blogs all over the net, due to one nyt article…and people wonder why this happens periodically. She rules the world.

#156–# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm
_____________

Loved your post!

groundcontrol @ 11/22/2008 at 12:18 am

“Here are photos of Brad and Angelina in Africa with Maddox in April, 2005. It’s said to be a “secret vacation.” If that’s true then how did a photographer get there? Credit: Bauergriffinonline ”

Um, by plane? By astral projection?

First of all that credit Line does not mean they necessarily took the photo. It means they own it. It could easily have been taken by an employee of the resort or another guest who finally figured out who to sell it.

Pitt was photographed at LAX leaving for this trip. He also had to make connections and fly a private plane to get there. There are pics of him getting off the plane and being driven to the resort that came out later. Does anyone really think that Brad Pitt – famous the world over – went unnoticed every stop of the way to Kenya? Photo agencies have stringers everywhere – espcially at a luxury resort frequented by celebrities.

And most telling was that the pics were snapped on or around April 17 and they didn’t make the press until many weeks later in May. If the paps had snapped them they would have been published immediately.

I am loving this Jolie Power.

The sexist depiction and words (“manipulative” “cunning”) not so much. I am really getting fed up with the Misogyny Wars of 2008.

263 Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm

…she is supposed to give 1/3 of her wages.
——-
Who says?

http://www.cambodianhealthcommittee.org/projects_mccc.html

Maddox Chivan Children’s Center (MCCC)

Brad Pitt and children from the MCCC during his visit with Angelina Jolie in November 2006. Photo by Brint Stirnton, Getty Images.The CHC opened the doors of the Maddox Chivan Children’s Center for AIDS infected and affected children in Phnom Penh in February of 2006 with the support of actress and activist Angelina Jolie. In honor of her work on behalf of children worldwide, the CHC named the center after her oldest child, who was born in Cambodia. To date, the Chivan Center has offered its unique program of multidisciplinary care to more than 600 Cambodian children infected and affected by HIV/AIDS.

The center focuses on the growing population of children whose lives have been severely impacted by the AIDS epidemic. Before having access to therapy, support was limited to accompanying children in the last moments of their lives. Now, life expectancy is much higher, which changes the type of support that they need. These needs extend beyond mere medical ones. They are typically unable to receive schooling because of their illness or because they have to take care of their ill parents, or work to support their families. They are victims of discrimination at school and in their communities, traumatized by their parents’ death and often living in extreme poverty in which their opportunities are severely limited.

Current estimates report that approximately 14,000 children in Cambodia are infected with HIV and mother-to-child transmission of AIDS is one of the major reasons for new infections. Without specific support that can help them cope with all of the obstacles and difficulties that they have to face, what kind of future can these children have?

The MCCC aims to respond in a comprehensive way to this need by offering multidisciplinary care. This incudes medical treatment for AIDS affected and infected children, provision of a daily nutritious lunch, educational support from preschool through 6th grade, counseling (through art therapy, peer groups, life skills workshops), sports activities, English, computer, etc.

Above all, the children get to be just children at the MCCC, not “children with AIDS or from an AIDS family”. A special focus of the MCCC is on the particularly vulnerable ages of preschool and the teenage years, which has very specific needs in terms of counseling, health, and education.

The number of orphans due to AIDS in Cambodia is greater than 100,000. The multidisciplinary approach being pioneered in the Maddox Chivan Children’s Center, will give these kids a leg up through education and opportunities in addition to medical assistance. The project is designed to be a model for pediatric AIDS care globally, while providing integrated care for AIDS infected and affected children and their families.

A new initiative underway is the construction of a new outpatient center at the pediatric ward of the KFSH and the renovation of the ward, which will care for approximately 500 children receiving care for AIDS. The new clinic will be opened in the spring of 2009.

CHC News (February 2008)

…and I am telling you I’m not going…

Why is People Magazine denying this on Just Jared. They can
write a article in their own magazine and explain it all. Brad
and Angelina can show all their paper work on how much
money they have actually donated. It should be in their
2007 tax returns as a deduction. They also have a foundation
that would should show every cent that they have given. I
read another article early in the week about charity organzations
being investigated. Their names and another were mentioned.
I find it hard to believe that the New York Times would print a
story like this if there isn’t some truth to it. They would certainly
be leaving themselves open to a law suit. They did show their
donations in 2006 less than the money they received for pictures,
and she has always claimed she donates 1/3 of her wages.
Cambodia complained that she pledged money and they
didn’t get it. Later she switched the people handling the money.
I realize that most people on this sight worship her and I am sure
that is why People picked this sight. It does same rather
strange to me. I am waiting for a article to appear in People,
them asking for a retaction or something.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7725075.stm

Interesting BBC interview. Looks alike it was done right after the NY premere. The commercial is a little annoying but watch both parts. They are nicely done.

If Jolie hasn’t done any of this and they are giving away all the
money they say they are (the pictures and etc) then it should be
easy enough to prove. She has made a lot of money off her
kids and so far we have seen nothing showing that she has
donated it. That is what they said it was for. As far as the
New York Times printing the article, how can you be sure
that they don’t even know more than they are printing? I
can’t imagine a paper that size risking a law suit to print
it. People should be denying this in their own magazine,]
not on Just Jared. It should be interesting to see how it
all plays out. A good image is one thing, but out lying to
get one is quite another thing and it should bother every
one. Maybe we should see the 2007 tax returns or the
records for their foundation.

You and me @ 11/22/2008 at 12:55 am

Sandy and Mary type the same way

That’s cause along with being a moron, it’s the same person (sandy/mary) . Apparently she’s unaware that she’s on a fan site, and that we know the JPs philanthropic and charitable dealings backwards, forwards and sideways and have the stats, resources and links to back it up. They hire the right people, that follow the letter to a T. AJ even had FOX news and O’Really on her tail, and even they say she’s the real deal. Furthermore, only a moron would believe that with the double standard and witchhunt tactics that exist out there for Jolie, if even one thing was out of sorts re their funding, the media would be all over them, or rather all over Angelina, since Brad is non existent in these stories.

You and me @ 11/22/2008 at 12:55 am Sandy and Mary type the same way

=========
Yup Jenhags changes names a lot of time just because they want it to appear that their are “many” that hates angie which is the opposite people love STRONG, INDEPENDENT and SMART, GORGEOUS, LOVING MOTHER AND A HUMANITARIAN woman like ANGELINA JOLIE. Who wants to be in the team whiny, boring, ugly, never grow up, desperate cougar who dates a urinator ..bleehhh NADA!!

opps sorry their are = there are ..

Mondo Bongo! @ 11/22/2008 at 1:28 am

Crazy ass comic relief trolls………. Pathetic! :lol:

Angelina Jolie~ Super Star!

Poor pathetic eternal victim Jen cannot bask in her product placement NYT article. NYT had to go and throw in an article on the iconic legend Jolie. Fire your PR Jen. Too funny.

I love Angie!

Can someone tell me please @ 11/22/2008 at 1:54 am

:) @ 11/22/2008 at 12:04 am Can someone tell me please @ 11/21/2008 at 11:30 pm

Where is this picture from (the one Jared has up)????

Is it from a recent interview? If so, can someone post the link to the interview please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw4xv_14VM
__________________________________________

Thanks a bunch, you rock. :-)

Angelina’s fans are the ones that keep bringing Brad’s ex
wife into the picture. I hardly think she has anything to do
with this. I know you all think that Angelina is wonderful,
People must know that everyone that worships her go
to Just Jared’s sight. Otherwise they would have denied
this in their own magazine. I think it is rather sad that
it doesn’t bother anyone that she doesn’t tell the truth,
change her stories every other day, worships her kids
but isn,t above pimping them out for money, says she
is going to stay home one week and the next says
she isn’t. One of the charties that she has worked with
is being investigated and the person owes back taxes.
Charities are great but they should be held accountable
for what they are doing with their money. I can’t believe
that the New York Times doesn’t have their story right
or they wouldn’t have printed it. Are you all so star stuck
that you donate to a cause and don’t even want to know
if it is being used for what you are told. I for one want
to see what they gave in 2007. Anybody can put their
money in a foundation to save money on their taxes
and pledge money but when and how is it going to
given out. I had read a article about charties that
were going to investigated last week in another
article. With all the charties in America that are
so desperate it really shouldn’t be hard to find
one to help.

oh look, first she’s sandy, then mary now she’s marica — look you f**king moron, give it up, you’re gonna keep getting flipped because whatever 1996 pc you are pounding your silly asss diatribes out on, all read the same way – f*cked up with abbreviated sentences.

Face it, you’re obsessed with Jolie like everybody else – if anything you should identify with how Brad felt when he met her. Because like him, you can’t climb off her for a second.

Go show maniston and her i’m an illiterate monkey menopausal greek lady Aniston who wants to be the new katherin heigl but have none of the talent. She needs love. The golden showers from perez hilton’s lover aren’t doing her self-esteem any good.

Guys, Jared posted a link on the X thread to the NY Times article. It’s a riot. They asked the the dumbest-ass questions I ever heard. Just a sampling:

Q: What was the first television show you remember watching?
A: Oh, God — “The New Zoo Revue”? Or maybe “Land of the Lost?” No — it was that guy . . . Captain Kangaroo. He was on the porch with Mr. Green Jeans. Have I just dated myself?

Q: When did you first appear on a screen?
A: My dad became a soap opera actor, and I was an extra in a skating rink scene on the soap. I didn’t audition. It was nepotism all the way.

Q: If “Friends” comes on when you’re home, will you watch?
A: I have. There are times I don’t even remember that particular show. This is horrible to say, but there are times when I laugh my rear end off. And I get in debates with people who are over and say, “ ‘Friends’ is not my thing.” Excuse you!

Q: You’re lucky that the show that was successful — “Friends” — was the one that should have been. You could have been Jeanie Bueller forever.
A: That would have been the worst… That’s why “Friends” was so great. During the first week of shooting, I thought, I’ll be heartbroken if this doesn’t continue. It was the first time I felt like part of the cool kids.

Research is your friend Marcia/Sandy/Mary/jane/Sue/Jen. Look up charitable foundations and read about the Jolie-Pitt various charitable organizations. To start with makeitrightnola.org and unhcr.org and the others that were listed on this thread. You can repeat the same thing under different names all night long but critics with greater resources than your mindless rant have investigated the Jolie-Pitts and come to the conclusion that they are the real deal.

If anyone else is up EST. zone.
showbiz tonight is doing something on Angie right now!

Omg jill, she sounds 14, except I won’t even insult 14 yr olds like that – they are deeper and more profound than this 40 yr old bish….how scary. …yeah sure, they did ask dumb questions, but she gave the worst answers…I think they thought she might be able to be funny, ala comedy improv people, they should know what we all do – that she ain’t that kind of comic actress, she’s the lucky actress that gets to share screentime with others who are somewhat funny…and uh, yeah bish, you just dated yourself, my grandma used to watch Captain Kangaroo. LMAO Dear God, new zoo revue (hunh?) cool kids, ‘friends is not my thing – Excuse you!’ Seriously, Dakota Fanning’s interviews are 1000 times more grown up and interesting – and nyt is throwing Angie to the wolves and lauding this bish?? Help us all.

Worth repeating, and thank you for posting.

# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family.

Have people forgotten the exodus of every major media outlet and pap agency to Lake Como, Italy in 2006 because they thought a wedding was taking place? Or how about the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stories and crawls about a New Orleans wedding less than 8 months ago?

So again, I’m sorry — if I’m Angelina Jolie what are my choices again?

1) I can be chased down in the street for the elusive first photographs of my child which will endanger my family and fatten the photographer and that of American Media Inc (tabloid behomoth) OR…

2) I can arrange a pictorial in a benign reputable weekly like People, get paid 14 million and distribute it to people around the world in need – it may even actually SAVE LIVES.

Hmmmm…decisions, decisions. Well, since I have a BRAIN. I’m going the Angelina Saves Lives route.

Let’s examine the Halle Berry route. Halle decides not to publish any pictorials, stating her daughter will “not be a public figure.” The papz laugh in her face. Halle’s home and property get invaded by papz trying to take pics of her infant daughter. Halle then decides to give them what they want and go to the zoo and the park and let the papz have at. Well, the next week, the pictures come out and the tabloid papz and tabloid publishing companies make their millions on the backs of her and her child.

I saw the many pics & stories about baby Nalah in People, US, STAR and the Bauer Publications – they ran them a good month. What does Halle get in return? well…NOTHING.

Not even a promise to not do it again, because OF COURSE, the papz will be out tomorrow and the next day and the next – annoying Halle and her child once again.

You can kind of view it like this:

Halle = O

American Media Inc & Bauer Publishing (In Touch, Life & Style) STAR, Natnl Enquirer, US Magazine, People magazine = 20-30 MILLION

Via Angelina Jolie & the Jolie Pitt Foundation: Drs Without Borders, US Military Children’s Foundation, UNHCR, AIDS & Malaria Foundations in SE Asia and Ethiopia, Millenium Project, KIND (Nationwide Network of Lawyers Assisting Minor Refugee Children) = 10 MILLION

Oh, and the PR Agencies/Agents that take 15% of whatever Angelina Jolie makes = ZERO. Because Angelina has NO agent, NO CAA, NO ICM, NO PK. Just her. That’s 15% back in her pocket, or rather to whatever charitable noble foundation she desires to give it to.

Yes, and now you see why you’re getting these strategically timed and placed articles – it’s very clear why Angelina Jolie must be punished.

Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

Good for People Mag for standing up. They know where all the bodies are buried. I’m sure the People editor was fit to be tied, here he gets raked over the coals for publishing a 6 year old story about Angelina’s Cambodian son, and the orphanage he was in, and the poverty in that country….

…and he knows just last WEEK he’s taking calls from CAA & PR power mogul Huvane asking him to publish Jen & John at the Sunset Towers, and to please write how loving they seemed. Or worse yet, he’s being asked to run a piece on how Jen’s 4th nose job isn’t really cosmetic, it’s all about her deviated septum.

Yet he takes it in the gut, for publishing skyrocketing HIV infection rates in Ethiopia, along with Angelina’s pictures of her daughter Zahara?

Wake up Hollywood. Though you may claim, this page is turning into Perez Hilton, most people would say, that happened a long time ago. It’s true, very seldom do you get an Oscar winning actress who is topping both the tabloids as well as the critically acclaimed list. The last person may have been Julia Roberts, but when she was peaking, the media wasn’t as incestuous as it is now. You didn’t have papers of note, quoting tabloid editors known for their lies. You can choose to view Jolie and her level of fame as an anamoly and something you don’t need to deal with – but the same problems will exist whether you discuss her or not — and that is, at the end of the day, what truly makes this a story to pay attention to, is that she, one of the biggest stars in the world, is NOT OWNED by the Death Star.

She’s powerful, all by her little self. In my book, that’s a reason to be admired, not exposed or cut down.

Hence why she’s on page 1 of the NYT. “Scary Smart,” indeed.

Report

# 300 Marica @ 11/22/2008 at 2:03 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

(I couldn’t help myself)

I know I said the other night that I was not going to watch Showbiz Tonight again after their jumping on the whole uncool incident. Well tonight I turned on the tv in the kitchen and it just happened to be on the channel where Showbiz comes on.

Before my finger could press the button to surf on they mentioned they were going to do this segment on The Transfomation of Angelina Jolie. My first inclination was to move on because they have suckered me to watch them in the past only to regret it afterwards.

I decided to watch it. And i must say I am happy I did. It was one of the most positive tellings about Angie done by an entertainment. Naturally the started with the triad. I love that name for the kiss, the blood, and sex. But was brief and not salacious.

I immediately went into her adopting of Maddox, divorce from BBT. It traced how she traveled around the world to some of the most dangerous hot spots in the world. And how she had been doing this without practically no one knowing about it and by herself. The showed the places she had traveled to.

This was all done with admiration and respect. They talked about her meeting Brad during the fliming of MMS. No mention of x. How once they came together she adopted Z and how Brad in turn gave both Z and Maddox his name.

They talked about Shiloh. And how the two of them were redefining themselves through their humanitarian work. Brad with makeitright, and Angie with her involvement in the UN and other causes.

I don’t remember the lady that narrating the piece but she said it was easy to see how Angie could go from wild child to humanitarian. She redirected her energy from something negative to something positive.
It was really good.

What was also interested is that they have these nightly questions. The question to night was should x and Angie end their feuding or something like that, should x move on? Any rate 63% said x should move on. 63% said move on x. 37% said she shouldn’t.

They also had people who called in. One lady said that Angie hadn’t started the feud and it wasn’t on her. I am paraphrasing here. Another lady called in and said that she respecected Angie for her humanitarian work, but she was a some stupid name.

Except for that one person the segment was totally positive. And 63% said they are tired of x and her whinning and she should move on. If you can catch it it’s worth a watching. People have real problems to deal with. To listen to some less than talented, homely millionaire cry about a four year marriage she frucked up has gotten more than old. It is now putrid. Peace

lmao ebmo.

ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 2:15 am

I am at EST, i watched it at 11pm, now 2pm it is the 2nd time, I think it is old. But they have a poll about it’s time for X and Angie to burry the hatch (something like that- I forgot)
60+% say yes
30+% say no
I think the public begin to get tired of the triangle.

Good for AJ if she can really do what NYT is saying. Many celebrities employed PR co and pay millions to them to generate positive press. If AJ without PR rep can do it, she is one astute and great businesswoman. PR agency could do with personnel like her. She know how to use her assets without paying obscene amt for the publicity. All the others shd learn from her.
She can be a subject/ topic of discussion/dissertation in University Mktg & advertising course esp in marketing of celebritities. ” How to manipulate the press for positive press and still generate millions?
WOW. If I ever do my MBA maybe I will do this for my thesis and then start a PR company, employed AJ as one of the advisor.
In the world of show biz, it is the best manipulator of the press who is the winner. So whatever is said, AJ is the winner if what NYT said is true.

I want to share the following quotes (of various personalities) to the people who are cynical about Angie’s motive in doing her share in helping others:

“What she has done transcends her physical beauty and really reminds us that it’s what is in the heart, and I really want to commend her for what she’s done in such a serious and thoughtful way.” (Hillary Clinton)

“I don’t know Angelina Jolie, but I admire her work.” (Barack Obama)

“Celebrities are doing the work that journalists are not. We can’t afford to be cynical about that….Can you really strike out against Angie and Bono?…Sure, there’s an opinion backlash. People think they are doing it for some sort of ego trip. But the people who are expressing that opinion? What are they doing?” (Marianne Pearl)

“Angie roughs it. She lives with us in the forest and eats the crickets and the cockroaches the locals eat without thinking twice about it. Whenever I read in magazines about her ‘glorious house in Cambodia,’ I think, What? It’s a shack. I don’t think people believe she has the ability to abandon everything in the West and transpose herself to a situation with malaria and dengue fever and the most extreme poverty. I read about her ‘Hollywood life.’ Well, you can’t live a Hollywood life in this part of Cambodia.” (Stephen Bognar)

“Their participation has been absolutely essential to the mainstreaming of these global issues into American life, which is why I find so ridiculous the cynicism, the pundits who disdain this. They misunderstand how our society works, and they misjudge these people, their leadership. No good deed goes unpunished, and it’s certainly true of this activity. Angelina goes at it with utter honesty, hard work and a deep feeling for the common faith of humanity. There’s no doubt about that or about her love for her children. And yet the amount of chattering that goes on about it is endless and preposterous, in my view” (Jeffrey Sachs)

“OK.Now, your daughter, Angelina Jolie. You know, we checked her out. I don’t know whether you know this or not. Big investigation on her. And we found out she walks the walk, that she gives all the money, millions of dollars and this and that. (Bill O’Reilly talking to Jon Voight)

“What I don’t understand is the media’s criticism (of Jolie’s) involvement in humanitarian aide and why they question her motives and sincerity..It’s like, Who cares? She’s doing a good job and putting so much of her time and money in the causes.” (Tea Leoni)

“These people don’t need additional focus or respect. I’m not that cynical at all. Angelina has given not only her time, but her money to assist people who need it most….In the past, entertainers have usually led selfish and egotistical lives so I like it when I see people like Angelina trying so hard. I think she has raised some awareness and that she has an extremely good heart.” (Mia Farrow)

“Her going to Haiti really helped my foundation. It was in a time where she was still pregnant. Haiti being the most dangerous place in the world, for Angelina Jolie to land there—while pregnant—that’s gangster. We respect that to the T.“ (Wyclef Jean)

“I like them (Angelina & Brad) very much…They’re bright, interested in what’s going on, open to everything, ready to grab everything they can out of life. They’re not wasting a lot of time being movie stars. They’re taking advantage of it to see, listen and learn. “(Leslie Caron)

“I want to congratulate Angelina because it’s been a very long time since I’ve been in this business and I’ve never met a person who has such a good balance between family life, humanitarian efforts, ..and all the extraordinary work that she does in addition to this.” (Dustin Hoffman)

“I think her humanitarian position has just changed the way actresses and people in the industry think about what they can actually do … to help the world,” (Marc Bauer)

“Angelina Jolie…just seeing an actress who has been through it all and who doesn’t care what other people say about her — someone who has forged her own path.” (Olivia Wilde)

Thank you for posting the following article. Like PT, I agree 110% with the writer, Chris Good. Is there a link?

# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm 23

Ignorance is not only bliss, haters count on it.

So, we are back to that old argument again – what came first? People’s interest in ‘Brangelina,’ or the pictorial of their firstborn? Since I’m a photographer, and know that people were offering me and my brethren a million dollars cash back in the spring of 2005 for a picture of Brad & Angelina together, a full YEAR before Shiloh was a twinkle – I would say the pictorial is a result of the rabid full-on chase we were exacting on the family.

Have people forgotten the exodus of every major media outlet and pap agency to Lake Como, Italy in 2006 because they thought a wedding was taking place? Or how about the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS stories and crawls about a New Orleans wedding less than 8 months ago?

So again, I’m sorry — if I’m Angelina Jolie what are my choices again?

1) I can be chased down in the street for the elusive first photographs of my child which will endanger my family and fatten the photographer and that of American Media Inc (tabloid behomoth) OR…

2) I can arrange a pictorial in a benign reputable weekly like People, get paid 14 million and distribute it to people around the world in need – it may even actually SAVE LIVES.

Hmmmm…decisions, decisions. Well, since I have a BRAIN. I’m going the Angelina Saves Lives route.

Let’s examine the Halle Berry route. Halle decides not to publish any pictorials, stating her daughter will “not be a public figure.” The papz laugh in her face. Halle’s home and property get invaded by papz trying to take pics of her infant daughter. Halle then decides to give them what they want and go to the zoo and the park and let the papz have at. Well, the next week, the pictures come out and the tabloid papz and tabloid publishing companies make their millions on the backs of her and her child.

I saw the many pics & stories about baby Nalah in People, US, STAR and the Bauer Publications – they ran them a good month. What does Halle get in return? well…NOTHING.

Not even a promise to not do it again, because OF COURSE, the papz will be out tomorrow and the next day and the next – annoying Halle and her child once again.

You can kind of view it like this:

Halle = O

American Media Inc & Bauer Publishing (In Touch, Life & Style) STAR, Natnl Enquirer, US Magazine, People magazine = 20-30 MILLION

Via Angelina Jolie & the Jolie Pitt Foundation: Drs Without Borders, US Military Children’s Foundation, UNHCR, AIDS & Malaria Foundations in SE Asia and Ethiopia, Millenium Project, KIND (Nationwide Network of Lawyers Assisting Minor Refugee Children) = 10 MILLION

Oh, and the PR Agencies/Agents that take 15% of whatever Angelina Jolie makes = ZERO. Because Angelina has NO agent, NO CAA, NO ICM, NO PK. Just her. That’s 15% back in her pocket, or rather to whatever charitable noble foundation she desires to give it to.

Yes, and now you see why you’re getting these strategically timed and placed articles – it’s very clear why Angelina Jolie must be punished.

Wonder when someone will write a story about THAT?? I say no time soon, because most of the entertainment reporters writing for so-called reputable outlets get greased by the PR agents. KNOWN FACT. And another reason for this piece most likely, it’s all about competition – you heard Tilda Swinton last year. She knows what’s up.

Good for People Mag for standing up. They know where all the bodies are buried. I’m sure the People editor was fit to be tied, here he gets raked over the coals for publishing a 6 year old story about Angelina’s Cambodian son, and the orphanage he was in, and the poverty in that country….

…and he knows just last WEEK he’s taking calls from CAA & PR power mogul Huvane asking him to publish Jen & John at the Sunset Towers, and to please write how loving they seemed. Or worse yet, he’s being asked to run a piece on how Jen’s 4th nose job isn’t really cosmetic, it’s all about her deviated septum.

Yet he takes it in the gut, for publishing skyrocketing HIV infection rates in Ethiopia, along with Angelina’s pictures of her daughter Zahara?

Wake up Hollywood. Though you may claim, this page is turning into Perez Hilton, most people would say, that happened a long time ago. It’s true, very seldom do you get an Oscar winning actress who is topping both the tabloids as well as the critically acclaimed list. The last person may have been Julia Roberts, but when she was peaking, the media wasn’t as incestuous as it is now. You didn’t have papers of note, quoting tabloid editors known for their lies. You can choose to view Jolie and her level of fame as an anamoly and something you don’t need to deal with – but the same problems will exist whether you discuss her or not —

Showbiz toight is a joke. Are they going to do the Angelina transformation every three months? Wow the power of Angelina is amazing.

Thanks for those quotes neer — I am bookmarking and posting wherever I can, if you don’t mind. Thanks.

maniston is really a piece of non-existent trash dna by the way she answered those questions,lol,put a fork in the bit ch, her career is smoked,lol

awww…..I see all the ‘trolls” are having fits about ANYTHING negative about their saint, as usual. You people are pathetic. LMAO!!!!

oh another name changing maniston freak is here to expound us with is 1st grade philosphy,lol,troll,rather have a saint than a coked up tv star getting piss on by another coked up musican honey,lol

# 314 releka I just posted a comment about Showbiz Tonight and their segment on Angie and Jared has put it in moderation. There is nothing negative in it.

I had sworn off ST after their uncool rant. But tonight I saw that headline and decided to watch. I thought it was pretty positive how it traced her early years of humanitarian work show ing the countries she visited withou fanfare to her efforts now.

They included everything her meeting Brad, adopting z, having Shiloh, Pax, makeitright everything except x. Goodgawd.

I was impressed. Therefore I am surprised that I am in moderation. Ohwell who knows why. IMHO is was worth watching. Nothing a fan wouldn’t know but it is good to see something positive. Peace

People,if you read and understand what is being said,it says no one is exempted from media manipulation for positive image publicity,not even Brad and Angie,except the Brangies do it better, with grace because they do it not only for their image but to put awareness on their humanitarian endeavors.With regards to Jennifer Aniston,why do you think Alec Baldwin changed his feelings in less than 24 hrs.when asked by the media “how does it feel kissing Jennifer Aniston?”It is because of her PR TEAM.Bottom line is Brad and Angie outsmarted the fox(media),so now they are crying foul!!!And GOD is still on Brad and Angie’s side,period.

dina #1 @ 11/22/2008 at 2:41 am

How come you always got moderated :lol:

btw, I was watching Brad on Okra again with my mouth ear to ear.

Does anybody know what website the Chris Good article is from? He remembers a lot of the details about Brad and Angelina that I have forgotten. He is good (no pun intended).

BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:52 am

Interesting…from awards….

Mary B.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 am

The posts supporting and/or defending Angelina Jolie here are simply a direct result of ridiculous attacks on her. No sane person likes unfair attacks on others. I love how we are supposed to be in a cult of Angelina lovers. I’d say that just the opposite seems to exist because I keep reading the same bizarre words and accusations against her in a lot of places on the net. That cannot be a coincidence.

There are a few certified Jolie attackers here who don’t make a whit of sense babbling on about her as if she is the devil incarnate. Has this site attracted some fundamentalist cult?

As for the NY Times piece, I also cannot believe the criticisms in it over essentially nothing. The article is pretty much a lot of hot air. It offfers up more speculation and extrapolation than it does facts. What in the world is it “exposing”?

It has become quite the thing to attack strong women who take control of their lives and try to do some good in the world. That seems to be all I am doing this year – defending strong women who attract ridiculously over the top criticism. I am all for more female power.

Is someone here really attacking the Jolie Pitt Foundation? Please. Its tax filings are online for all to see as have been the tax forms for Jolie’s other foundation. The JP Foundation makes very generous donations to many causes I also believe in. I don’t see how anyone can criticize their generosity with a straight face. No foundation distributes all its money or it would cease to exist. Do people really not understand this basic concept?

For the record, the NY Times piece was written by the same “reporter” who did such a terrible job reporting on the WGA strike last year. Brooks Barnes earned a reputation as a hack when he pretty much bought everything the studio moguls, publicists and production companies sold him – also anonymously – and was handed his ass by the writers out there. Take a whiff of him at Nikki Finke’s site – a number of reporters and bloggers completely deconstruct his articles during the strike.

Little Brooks Barnes is also a wannabe screenwriter.
_____________

LLM I just wrote a comment stating the samething and I am in moderation. What is with this in moderation thing?

63% said the should bury the hatchet, and x should move on. Did you hear the woman who said that Angie hadn’t started the feud? People are tired of x and her pity parties

One lady said she respected Angie’s humanitarian work but she was some name she called her. I think x’s Vogue article didn’t help her. And Brad on Oprah was the final nail in the coffin.

People have real issues to deal with no some rich woman who refuses to get a life and move on. I am going to be like Neleh and say hey Jared don’t put this in moderation please. Peace

an oldie @ 11/22/2008 at 2:18 am

Worth repeating, and thank you for posting.

# 156 awards @ 11/21/2008 at 8:17 pm Chris Good

GREAT POST. !!!!!!!!!!! BRAVO !!!!!!!!!

I posted my original comments at JJB. I am going to try and post them here again. I don’t know why I am in moderation. Jared that sucks.

I know I said the other night that I was not going to watch Showbiz Tonight again after their jumping on the whole uncool incident. Well tonight I turned on the tv in the kitchen and it just happened to be on the channel where Showbiz comes on.
Before my finger could press the button to surf on they mentioned they were going to do this segment on The Transfomation of Angelina Jolie. My first inclination was to move on because they have suckered me to watch them in the past only to regret it afterwards.
I decided to watch it. And i must say I am happy I did. It was one of the most positive tellings about Angie done by an entertainment. Naturally the started with the triad. I love that name for the kiss, the blood, and sex. But was brief and not salacious.
I immediately went into her adopting of Maddox, divorce from BBT. It traced how she traveled around the world to some of the most dangerous hot spots in the world. And how she had been doing this without practically no one knowing about it and by herself. The showed the places she had traveled to.
This was all done with admiration and respect. They talked about her meeting Brad during the fliming of MMS. No mention of x. How once they came together she adopted Z and how Brad in turn gave both Z and Maddox his name.
They talked about Shiloh. And how the two of them were redefining themselves through their humanitarian work. Brad with makeitright, and Angie with her involvement in the UN and other causes.
I don’t remember the lady that narrating the piece but she said it was easy to see how Angie could go from wild child to humanitarian. She redirected her energy from something negative to something positive.
It was really good.
What was also interested is that they have these nightly questions. The question to night was should x and Angie end their feuding or something like that, should x move on? Any rate 63% said x should move on. 63% said move on x. 37% said she shouldn’t.
They also had people who called in. One lady said that Angie hadn’t started the feud and it wasn’t on her. I am paraphrasing here. Another lady called in and said that she respecected Angie for her humanitarian work, but she was a some stupid name.
Except for that one person the segment was totally positive. And 63% said they are tired of x and her whinnying and she should move on. If you can catch it it’s worth a watching. People have real problems to deal with. To listen to some less than talented, homely millionaire cry about a four year marriage she frucked up has gotten more than old. It is now putrid. Peace
Thank you, after that NYT article I was pissed off at all Journalists and entertainment show. Now this is what they should be focusing on.

Thank you for writing this.

foreverangie

BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:59 am

oldie, chris good was on awards daily – as is mary b.

LOL at the haters screaming “investigate Brangelina’s trust fund distibutions”. The fans donate money to MIR, bought the People mags, all the while not doubt ing Brad and Angelina for one second. The haters didn’t contibute a penny, and yet they want to know where the money goes. To the haters: It’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, because IT”S NOT YOUR MONEY.

dina #1 @ 11/22/2008 at 2:53 am

ITA. Vogue article didn’t help her guest spot at 30 rock and Oprah’s rating. jook up with Mr. Pee boy are not selling much, so we had this NYT smearing campaign, I wonder how much did Huvane paid this guy ?

Huvaniston were all out campaigning for the Dog movie, it’s her last effort , if that fail, it’s the end for the 40 y.o hag.

dina #1 @ 11/22/2008 at 2:53

ITAW, __ lost this time, Brad has spoken on Okra show, he is very happy with his family period. So if __ still using BA, it just backfire her.
no mod JJ :lol:

By Access Hollywood 31 minutes ago — E! entertainment television has just named supermodel Karolina Kurkova the sexiest woman in the world. Second place on E!’s sexiest list went to Israeli model Bar Rafaeli, who has been linked to Leonardo DiCaprio. Coming in third was Angelina Jolie, while Tom Brady’s babe, Bundchen, finished fourth and Scarlett Johansson rounded out the top five.

The complete top 10 of E!’s Sexiest Women In The World:

1. Karolina Kurkova
2. Bar Rafaeli
3. Angelina Jolie
4. Gisele Bundchen
5. Scarlett Johansson
6. Adriana Lima
7. Heidi Klum
8. Penelope Cruz
9. Manuela Arcuri
10. Shakira

________________

What?!! B-b-b-ut…oh dear, where oh where is Maniston??? You mean all that stripping, brazilian waxing…asss up, chin in sand posing for pap after pap, on beach after beach after beach..tanning…oiling up……and NADA….yet, Angelina…who’s been pregnant up to her eyeballs for almost two whole years in a row, places 3rd.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hilarious!!!

# 309 LLM @ 11/22/2008 at 2:26 am ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 2:15 am

I am at EST, i watched it at 11pm, now 2pm it is the 2nd time, I think it is old. But they have a poll about it’s time for X and Angie to burry the hatch (something like that- I forgot)
60+% say yes
30+% say no
I think the public begin to get tired of the triangle.

+++++++++++++++
Yep I watched it. Those were the results. It think people cannot help but see that X brings up this crap all the time for publicity, especially when she is worried about a movie coming out. Whine whine whine.

I have NO sympathy for her whatsoever. Yes, a divorce can be hard. Even a break up can be hard. People split all the time. They had no children together that were devestated. Just her and her insecure neediness.

There is something in my original statement that jared doesn’t like. I even shortened it. And it is still in moderation. This is making me upset as it seems so arbitrary.

LLM, it bets the heck out of me. There is nothing negative in my comments at all. No cursing or swearing. I am just detailing what was on the program. It’s been awhile since I’ve been put in moderation so mybe it is just my turn. Who knows.

Oh well 63% said x should move on. So for me that is really all I need to convey. I posted the original on JJB without problems. Hey Jared I never complain. Peace

# 330 CLINIQUA @ 11/22/2008 at 3:11 am By Access Hollywood 31 minutes ago — E! entertainment television has just named supermodel Karolina Kurkova the sexiest woman in the world. Second place on E!’s sexiest list went to Israeli model Bar Rafaeli, who has been linked to Leonardo DiCaprio. Coming in third was Angelina Jolie, while Tom Brady’s babe, Bundchen, finished fourth and Scarlett Johansson rounded out the top five.

The complete top 10 of E!’s Sexiest Women In The World:

1. Karolina Kurkova
2. Bar Rafaeli
3. Angelina Jolie
4. Gisele Bundchen
5. Scarlett Johansson
6. Adriana Lima
7. Heidi Klum
8. Penelope Cruz
9. Manuela Arcuri
10. Shakira
________________

What?!! B-b-b-ut…oh dear, where oh where is Maniston??? You mean all that stripping, brazilian waxing…asss up, chin in sand posing for pap after pap, on beach after beach after beach..tanning…oiling up……and NADA….yet, Angelina…who’s been pregnant up to her eyeballs for almost two whole years in a row, places 3rd.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hilarious!!!
+++++++++++++++++++
They were looking for the sexiest WOMEN!!!!
I am not sure Aniston qualifies. :lol:

# 326 BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:59 am
oldie, chris good was on awards daily – as is mary b
===================

Thank you

ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 3:15 am

Did you see Reese W speaking about her divorce, she is doint the opposite of X, she said she has no time for those kind of negative feeling something like that.

Mrs. Smith @ 11/22/2008 at 3:21 am

Before I shut down for the night I must say that this NYT piece is such utter BULLSHT !!
That it’s done in a so called ‘reputable’ newspaper’ is even worse. I find it hard to believe that recanting Angie’s past of wearing a small vial of her then husband BBT’s blood, or having sex with him in a limo, would be what I’d want to read about in the Business section of my newspaper with so many other crises happening daily in our financial sector.

This article is so obscenely stupid, on so many levels, that I have to surmise that this idiot must have graduated from the National Enquirer School of Journalism. Why place any attention on the plight of the needy, when we could be reading more salacious gossip about that orangey 40 yr old thing and her latest boyfriend.

Good for People Magazine to straighten this NY Times lies about Angie. I will never buy New York Times. Good journalism should show no bias to anyone.
I admire Brad & Angie, kudos to their charitable projects.
God bless the Jolie-Pitt’s.

Sandy @ 11/22/2008 at 12:52 am
If Jolie hasn’t done any of this and they are giving away all the
money they say they are (the pictures and etc) then it should be
easy enough to prove.
********************************************************************************************

Then get up off your lazy ass and go check it out. You come on here asking a lot of dumbass questions and expect us to do your work for you? Ain’t gonna happen.

# 330 CLINIQUA

_ is the pitiest woman in the world and who blames everyone but herself.

# 336 LLM @ 11/22/2008 at 3:21 am ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 3:15 am

Did you see Reese W speaking about her divorce, she is doint the opposite of X, she said she has no time for those kind of negative feeling something like that.
+++++++++++++++
Yep. But then her “not so successful Ex” had no problem whining about how hard it was seeing pictures of Reese and Jake together.

See a parallel there? He and X need press? Coat tail their Xs who actually have successful careers!

Why isn’t Owen Wilson doing press with x for the dog movie? Just wondering. good night. Peace

Good Nite everyone. Nice to talk to you guys.

heywood jablomie @ 11/22/2008 at 3:50 am

The People mag should just copy the smug NYT “answer” to Republican accusations of biased coverage during the elections, word for word, and throw it back in their faces.

This newspaper took a big to its reputation in 2003 when one of their reporters was caught up in the “The Jayson Blair Project” scandal from which it never fully recovered from. Many critics believe that it’s no more than a gossip rag masking as a reputable newspaper.

Along with other reporters from other “reputable” papers charges included: embellishing, exaggerating, and outright lying in print. Here’s the link for those of you who want to review it…
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082741

I can’t remember at this time who said the following, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” but it’s right up there with, “You can’t believe everything you read.” People magazine has the right to defend it’s reputation against this so-called respectable newspaper.

‘Bye.

neer @ 11/22/2008 at 4:06 am

What ’s with X ? New strategy or antics? Copying Angie? Oh X, she can’t copy the original… pose, photos, dress, etc..As someone said, “”SHE’S NOHING BUT A SECOND RATE, TRYING HARD, COPY CAT!!!”

.Angie has a personality that is very original and only suits her. Even Angie makes faces on some of her photos, she’s still beautiful & hot. Never gets tired looking at her. With X, i want to cover my eyes & even regretted why I look at her.

Look at her photos (in NYT)… what is she doing…does she think by making faces is funny? First time I saw those of hers is very DISTURING TO LOOK AT. Photos are supposed to be art but with her it’s not!!!

What a desperate attempt of X to gain attention???!!!

AlexAmber @ 11/22/2008 at 4:20 am

Thank you People Magazine for being truthful.

322 BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:52 am

No foundation distributes all its money or it would cease to exist.
Exactly! I hope their foundation makes good investments and makes plenty more so that it can give regularly.

Do people really not understand this basic concept?
Sandy, Mary and other dim ones want Brad and Angie to give away all the money they got for the baby pics at once, and I bet they didn’t even buy a ‘People’ or ‘Hello’ with the twins.

The photos in kenya were taken by Mr paparazzi who is from the UK.He is always on the UK tele talking about how they followed Angelina and Brad All through the filming of Mr and Mrs Smith.There was in programme in 2005 on UK television about the paprazzi,one person they followed was Angelina all over the UK.

They lived outside Angelina’s UK home and followed her everywhere,shopping,airport and film sets.Mr paparazzi said they followed Brad to Kenya and took those pictures.They.ve got pictures of Brad’s every step to Kenya.He says he made one million and it remains one of his biggest selling pictures to date.He has written a book about paps pictures,B and A are featured and he tells how he got the pictures.US bought the pictures for $500 000 and he sold them in other countries as well.B and A had nothing to do with those pictures.UK fans will know who Mr paparazzi is he appears on LK today sometimes.He glotes about being the one who got the pictures,US bought the pictures from him.

very cheap article from NY times. Like it was from Us weekly or dirtnow magazine…

attention aussie fans @ 11/22/2008 at 5:27 am

Angelina and Clint Eastwood will be interviewed by Andrew Denton on Enough Rope. November 24 (Monday) 9:35pm Eastern Time on the ABC.

-=--=-=-=-90p'#[n../ku @ 11/22/2008 at 5:54 am

what a surprise!!! not. PEOPLE.COM DOES NOT HAVE this story up but just jared does???

attention aussie fans @ 11/22/2008 at 5:27 am

What time will that be in the UK

#353

Maybe because stupid in the first sentence of the written piece it says this is an email from the editor of People to his staff. So not an article.

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 6:07 am

waving to fans! i lost alot of great things.

thank to everyone for Oprah’s interview and transcript. for some reason i can’t access to youtube so i couldn’t watch the Oprah’s show , but fans reports and transcript were great. i just love what he told about Angie. Can someone explain why non of these so called gossip’s blog took his sentence about Angie? why there is no article with Brad’s sentence about Angie? this just show how gossip things work. and there are some so called fans who ask why Brad doesn’t talk about Angie. Even when he does , no one pick his sentence because it doesn’t help the story they want to come up with next.

about NYT’s article. really reading it was like reading US Liesly. it seemed to me , it was written not only to criticise Angie but to bring People’s magazine down too. it seemed to me that who ever was behind it had issues not only with Angie but with People Magazine. like it was trying to say everything you see in their magazine is not true because they make contract with people to be positive about them . don’t buy them. buy US. it was seriously the only thing i’ve got from reading it. i’m glad People Magazine is talking about it. it was something about them.

again thank you for all articles and news.

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 6:12 am

attention aussie fans @ 11/22/2008 at 5:27 am

Is it Live ? Are they going to Australia to promote their movie or it is pre recorded from New York? Do you have any information about it? It will be great if we are going to have another premiere’s pics. Clint and Angelina were adorable together during USA today’s interview. it is fun to watch them after reading them. thank for information anyway.

i have to go. another class in 10 minutes. will be back later. thanks again for every news and articles and good comments.

BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:52 am

Interesting…from awards….For the record, the NY Times piece was written by the same “reporter” who did such a terrible job reporting on the WGA strike last year. Brooks Barnes earned a reputation as a hack when he pretty much bought everything the studio moguls, publicists and production companies sold him – also anonymously – and was handed his ass by the writers out there. Take a whiff of him at Nikki Finke’s site – a number of reporters and bloggers completely deconstruct his articles during the strike.

Little Brooks Barnes is also a wannabe screenwriter.

..
This does not surprise me. His article was just a gathering of gossip from tabs. Sad day for the new york times.

attention aussie fans @ 11/22/2008 at 7:20 am

UK fans @ 11/22/2008 at 5:59 am

Not sure, think London is 10-11 hours behind Sydney. Monday night in Sydney = Monday morning in UK

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 6:12 am

I believe it was pre recorded, presumably in LA.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/

Why can’t Yahoo control its image like Angelina Jolie?
Posted by Chris Matyszczyk Print E-mail Share Post a commentYahoo! Buzz
.
In these troubled days for journalism, it was, for some, uplifting to read that Angelina Jolie is able to control her image to a pre-Botox level of startle.

The New York Times reported this week that Ms. Jolie allegedly offers exclusive pictures of her latest offsprings in exchange for guaranteed positive coverage in venerable publications such as People magazine.

Which surely leads one to thinking about Yahoo.

Here’s a company that seems to enjoy more barbs than British teeth. Allegations of indecision, myopia and even collusion with the Chinese Government are tossed like pungent confetti at the company on a far too frequent basis.

And yet it’s not as if Yahoo is the worst company in the world. It’s not as if it doesn’t make money. It’s not as if its brand doesn’t have some residual positive associations. And it’s not as if it took a major role in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or the entirely seminal Gone in Sixty Seconds.

Image or reallity?

(Credit: CC Erkans)Yet while Ms Jolie appears to have contrived an image for herself that has now allowed her to participate in half-decent works of entertainment such as Changeling and The Good Shepherd, Yahoo struggles for respect.

While it’s relatively easy to point to strategies Yahoo might have adopted or management changes it might have made, it is also easy to point to Ms. Jolie’s interesting declaration at the 2000 Academy Awards that: “I’m so in love with my brother right now.”

One might argue that entertainment journalists are less rigorous than those in the business sphere. One might also argue that some other companies- does Apple come to mind, anyone?- manage to control their images in a far more productive way than Yahoo.

Perhaps Apple executives study the way Ms. Jolie’s expert publicists steer their client’s public persona.

Might it therefore be an idea for Yahoo to get some guidance from the extraordinary publicist who appears to be solely and uniquely responsible for the Jolie Image Enterprise?

She’s called Angelina Jolie.

.

annie @ 11/22/2008 at 7:33 am

—-
BULL

You know what, the more the press put Angelina down, the more I admire & love her. It will only makes her more famous.

You want to see prove that there is a move on to hurt Angie?? LOOK AT US WEB SITE. NO MENTION OF ANGIE OR THIS ARTICLE WHY???
Us weekly have had Angie on their site EVERY DAY for the last few weeks dissecting every word she says in her interviews, telling the public what a bad person she is, then suddenly one of the most reported and discussed articles about Angie and her “manipulating the press” shows up; an article quoting Us Weakly and suddenly they have nothing to say? mmmmmm {whisper— stupid public— you are not suppose to notice}

NYTimes, Seeking Page Hits, Finds Backlash

Author: Ryan Adams
22 Nov

For me, the best part of yesterday’s New York Times article about Angelina Jolie is seeing so many of their readers ridicule the Times for stooping to the same supermarket tabloid scandalmongering it pretends to “investigate.”

2. As a PR professional, I find Ms. Jolie more adept at messaging and consistent use of talking points than many who have been in our industry for years. Should she decide to leave the motion picture industry, she’d surely be in high demand as the head of her own agency. Other public figures would do well to study the way she has developed her philanthropy and image – she is a total professional. — Marsha, Santa Cruz, CA

6. Audrey Hepburn’s humanitarian spirit, finely tuned to the 21st century, lives on in Ms Jolie. I can think of no greater compliment. — jordyray, Minneapolis, MN

15. Who cares? It seems to me that your petty account of this is a greater testament to the deplorable state of contemporary culture than a woman who should by any reasonable standards be left alone. Great investigative journalism, pal. — mopface, new york

18. When I started this article, I wanted to snark. But when I ended it I thought, wow, she’s got the beast under control. The media beast didn’t eat her. It’s wearing her collar. Who else can say that? Nobody else in the world. — Patricia, Pasadena, CA
There’s a lot more.

30. I don’t have a problem with this. The magazine money is flowing back to their charities and helping people in war-torn countries. Rock on, Angie. — deb1632, Torrance, CA

34. This story only reminded me that the Times, equally concerned about access to its subjects, has published stories that sell ideas like WMD in Iraq. It’s hard to get worked up about People when the result is celebrity photos. — NoDogInThisFight, Canada

52. Bravo to Angie! She’s put a lease on the monster. If at times they resent it they’ve only themselves to blame. — Peggy, Glens Falls, NY

78. Maybe Angelina should run for VP. At least she has a progressive worldview and doesn’t need protection from witchcraft. Though… I understand Jennifer Aniston is not too pleased with her. — Diane, NJ

82. Ms. Jolie is an amazing actor who is adept at managing her persona. No one should expect they are getting real insights in to any public persons life through People magizine and the like. All media is manipulation. The wise know how to use power to their advantage. Clearly Ms. Jolie uses her power to get what she wants out of life. Good for her. — Thomas, Mansfield, TX

84. Why is this article so prominently placed? It should be buried in the Arts and Leisure section. Unless I sense an editorial shift at work, in which case can we expect tomorrow’s page to feature profiles of WWF celebrities… — Gerald Denis, Boston, MA

108. I admire the tenacity of Angelina Jolie in knowing the limits she wishes to set on her privavcy and on the public image she creates for herself and family. Her humanitarian devotion, love for family and partner and tremendous talent is all that anyone needs to know. We should encourage the press to bring out the positive in everyone. Wouldn’t that change the world and isn’t that what Ms. Jolie is really all about? — LS, Costa Mesa, CA

110. No, this isn’t really news. However, the Times would do well to start documenting the carefully crafted messages and images that the Bush administration threw upon the American people, and the world, for the last 8 years. Now there’s some fancy PR work. — thinkinghurts, los angeles

119. I’m guessing the author of this is an all-American girl type who is still angry that her fellow all-American girl Jennifer Anniston was dumped by Brad Pitt. This article reeks of both jealousy as well as pathetic journalism. This so-called author has turned the New York Times into The Enquirer. — Savi, Chicago

127. Whoever has taken over the front page of this paper must have been hired from the Sun. This actress seems to take the world more seriously than one of the oldest papers in the country. — Inish, America

awards daily

AlexAmber @ 11/22/2008 at 8:47 am

Just realised I Lost an A in my name, Oh well, I am sure is around somewhere.

Love, Blessings and Abundance to the JP’s and the JP’s fans.

Healings for the lost souls, the spiritually stuck and the spiritually bankrupt.

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 9:17 am

waving again. thank you aussie’s fan for answer. i thought about it to be pre-recorded but wanted to be sure.

i guess we have fans from Germany in this blog? is it snowing in Germany? i just saw a picture of JP’s villa in Germany filled with snow. i wanted to know whether it is from today or not. i thought how great it is for JP’s kids to have snow around them all the time and how much fun it must be for them to play in it with their siblings and parents. last year they spent most of winter in L.A and didn’t actually play in snow that much except the time they went to M. mountain. would like to know if it is snowing or not.

i’m on my way to home. don’t think will have energy to log on when i arrive. so will be here other day. have fun fans and have a great weekend.

oh beyonce ur hubby is fu.ckingly fugzly.

OFF TOPIC: FOR SLB/momoji

I tried to respond to your previous posts before the Nov 4 elections but had a lot of difficulty posting on JJ’s at that time and a lot of what I posted ended up in moderation hell. So may be that’s why you might have misunderstood me (or perhaps it is I who have misunderstood you).

First:

I do not recall criticizing the bail out of Freddie and Fannie or AIG although, that may have been how it sounded thanks to parts of what I wrote being placed in moderation hell.

So let me say it clearly now, I supported the nationalization of Freddie, Fannie and AIG then and continue to believe the Bush administration did the right thing.

As I understand it, there are 2 main reasons why George Bush HAD TO BAIL OUT Fannie, Freddie and AIG.

(1) It is well known in the international markets regard Freddie’s and Fannie’s bonds as being implicitly guaranteed by the US government. It is for this reason that Freddie and Fannie have been able to issue bonds at lower interest rates then the usual market. Had the Bush administration allowed Freddie and Fannie to fail, then ONE of the consequences would have been whether the US government would honor its guarantees for other bonds it had issued. If people didn’t believe the US government would stand behind its guarantee, people, including the foreigners could (a) dump the bonds, or (b) insist on a higher rate of interest to buy US government bonds.

As the US national debt is in excess of more than 60% of the American GDP, much of that debt being funded by foreign buying of US Treasury bonds, I don’t think Bush had any choice but to step in and rescue Freddie and Fannie and make sure that the bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie are safe.

(2) in the case of AIG, I understand that AIG guaranteed the counter party risks in many of CDOs and Over the Counter Transactions, including hedges and CDOs etc. So, if AIG went belly up, then innocent parties whose counter parties have gone belly up in these transactions will also not be paid as they should have been. Due to the size of AIG, I was told its failure could have caused systemic collapse of the financial system.

The point I WAS trying to make about the bail out of Freddie, Fannie and AIG, was to refute the charge that Obama (or democrats in general) was a socialist which is what one of the posters had called him. I merely wanted to point out that the Fed and the Treasury under the George W Bush non socialist government had effectively nationalized these 3 companies.

The point therefore was:

“What does being a socialist or capitalist mean if George W Bush could nationalize these 3 entities (and later, take up stakes directly in other banks effective nationalising them too!!)???”

I wanted to make the point that the whole socialism vs capitalism arguments are very 1980s.

From what I have witnessed in India and China, ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM is what drives these governments rather then pure ideology. Hence, as Deng Hsiao Peng famously said (and was accused of being a capitalist by the Gang of 4 for saying it):

“Black cat, white cat, what do I care as long as it catches mice??”

So, in China, increasingly we see where markets work, then the government will try to let markets work and introduce laws which help market do what markets do best – create wealth. These laws being introduced include, for example, longer term “right of use” of property, something quite anathema to a communist party!!

I hope it is now clearer that I actually support the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie and AIG at the time it occurred and regard it as ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM.

canyousayhasbeen @ 11/22/2008 at 9:34 am

It really is about time psychologists gave a name to whatever personality disorder Angelina Jolie suffers from, because “narcissistic control freak with a Mother Teresa complex” (see also: Princess Diana, Mia Farrow) is a bit of a mouthful. Anyway, Angie must have pissed off someone at the Times, because today the paper does a mild hatchet job on her, raking over various details that we already knew: She micro-manages all aspects of her tabloid interviews especially her coverage in People; she supposedly doesn’t employ a publicist or agent; she and Brad make a big song and dance about giving the proceeds of their media deals to charity, but only a small slice seems to reach the beneficiaries; and, most importantly, when that ***** Jennifer Aniston is winning the hearts and minds of US Weekly readers, all Ang has to is don a headscarf, be photographed helping the tragedy-stricken in a third world country, and she’s back in the game.

The article fails, however, to investigate the two most fascinating mysteries about Angelina, namely: Why, if she’s so, in Bonnie Fuller’s words, “scary smart,” is she literally incapable of choosing a script that doesn’t suck? It’s hard to think of another actress of her fame and earning power who has never made a critically-acclaimed film. Also, inquiring minds want to know: Exactly how many cosmetic surgeries has she had, and who did them?

In other Angelina news this morning, the Daily Mail has posted pictures of her naked ass from her recent film Wanted, which is a useful coincidence. Or is it?

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 9:42 am

hahahaha that was actually a good article. i just love what Brad told. “reunion is nice!” hahahaha that is harsh. i mean who talk like that about his woman. it seems Brad was talking about his buddy. reunion is nice?! hahahaha i like it. i thought faniston told Brad was so in love with Aniston during 2004! hahahah

oh honey Angie told she slept with 5 men right after her split with Billy Bob. not recently. is it her problem that some UK’s tabloid get her interviews and use it like she told it yesterday while she told that in 2003? what amuses me is Angie told the exact thing in her other interviews in 2004 as well. that she has lovers. i guess this story makes Aniston more liar. she was ignoring the fact that they were spliting even when her then husband was thinking talking on the phone and reunion once in a time is nice. hahahaha actually that article is bad for faniston in every aspects. thanks for a laugh after a long day at uni.

bye fans and have fun.

PersianCutie @ 11/22/2008 at 9:52 am

for the record before i leave it seems BEYONCE’s post was deleted. my post was about an article from 2004 which was trying to put Angie as a liar. sorry for those who misunderstood it.

canyousayhasbeen @ 11/22/2008 at 9:35
Yep Poor Pathetic Whiny(X) days in Hollyweird are numbered but hey the girl is not going down without a fight or a good Whine. Meanwhile, AJ is the biggest star in the Universe. You can whine about her but you cannot ignore her. The power of the Jolie.

oh i see the stinking troll is back,lol

African Girl @ 11/22/2008 at 9:56 am

Good God! What in the world was that on JJ’s front page? That picture is gawd awful and anyone who still thinks Jared is being paid by Huvane should think again because…THAT PICTURE IS GAWD AWFUL!!!!!!

Anyhoo, I don’t get why some are upset over the NY Times Article, I mean it has done so many thing on some many levels, it’s like manna from heaven.

1) It shows how tabliodish the main stream media has become.

2) It shows that THE JOLIE is everybody’s fail safe plan.

3) It shows that THE JOLIE is one SMART WOMAN.

4) It shows that in the face of anything THE JOLIE always comes out on top.

5) It makes me laugh thinking of how other celebrities pay others to do what THE JOLIES does so effortlessly.

6) It pleases me to imagine a certain someone crying her house because once again, THE JOLIE is the talk of town despite the fact that she is god knows where and she didn’t have to stick her bum in the air of go on a pretend date with her pretend boyfriend.

7) It’s made me realize calling AJ…AJ does not capture the real essence if AJ, so from now on it’s THE JOLIE for moi!

Seriously, who else can have two media houses going at each other’s throats like this if not THE JOLIE!!!

ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!!

:) :) :)

PS
That picture of JA…was…was she trying to be cute? Really?

canyousayhasbeen @ 11/22

—————————-why not call Jen’s shrink,jen said she’s seeing a
psychiatrist to get her head straightened out.

That shot of Angelina’s b*tt has been on the dailymail site for a week

as for critiaclly acclaimed films—-the person who wrote that article is laughable,does she live under a rock.ENOUGH SAID

I SAID IT BEFORE AND I’LL SAY IT AGAIN X AND YOUR FANS,YOU’LL NEVER WIN.ANGELINA WINS ALL THE TIME.WATCH AND LEARN.WHY DO YOU THINK AFTER 4 YEARS SHE STILL AT THE TOP.

The list is an international who’s who of hot models and actresses, with six continents represented and two lovely ladies from the United States scoring slots in the top 10.
PHOTOS: E!’S SEXY WOMEN LIST
PHOTOS: VICTORIA’S SECRET RUNWAY SHOW
The ever-smoldering and Angelina Jolie – who recently gave birth to twins – nabbed third place while Scarlett Johansson’s buxom blond beauty put her fifth on the list.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081122_Angelina_Jolie__media_genius.html

Angelina Jolie, media genius

By EMILY GUENDELSBERGER guendee@phillynews.com
WHAT DOES the New York Times business section have in common with US Weekly? Well, now they’ve both used anonymous sources in articles about Angelina Jolie.

But while US’s latest tipster provides lurid details from the set of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” the Times quotes two anonymous insiders involved with the $14 million deal the Jolie and partner Brad Pitt cut with People for the first pictures of their twin daughters in August.

The sources claim that part of the deal put on the auction block was not just money, but that the winning bidder would provide only positive coverage of the Jolie-Pitt family in the future.

The Times investigative piece, titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” yesterday edged out articles on sexy topics like the seized-up credit market and falling grain prices to become the most e-mailed article in the business section.

People, of course, denied that they basically sold editorial content. But as other tabloids delve into the specifics of when exactly Jolie and Pitt first got together (following high-profile comments from Jennifer Aniston in Vogue this month saying that what Jolie did was “uncool”) and whether Pitt was still married at the time, a search of People’s stories on Jolie over the past month turn up . . . something on her new hairdo. The kids being cute. Getting back from doing humintarian work in Afghanistan. Nothing involving Aniston.

Now, perhaps People has come to the conclusion that damn, “Friends” has been off the air for four years now and Jennifer Aniston has done almost nothing with her time since then except make unsuccessful romantic comedies and garner pity from tabloids. Aniston’s cultural relevance is rooted in the ’90s and People would therefore be best served by keeping up a good relationship with the Jolie-Pitts.

* But taking a breather before SatTatt gets too media-wonked out, Hello! Magazine quotes Jolie as saying that first few years of her son Pax’s life in a Vietnamese orphanage were so rough that even after two years of living with fabulously wealthy parents, the 5-year-old still hides food for later. He does it “even though we explain there will be more tomorrow,” Jolie said.

So . . . there’s that. SatTatt hasn’t rescued any hungry children from a probable life of poverty lately, much less three. Therefore, she is willing to overlook the fact that Jolie, who made out with her brother in public, wore around a vial of Billy Bob Thornton’s blood and got serious with the husband of a rather beloved sitcom actress and emerged from it all with a great public image, clearly has all us media folk wrapped around her little finger.

LOLattheloon @ 11/22/2008 at 10:09 am

LOL at the loons. *poking you with a stick*
Losers.
Your s.k.ank is going down in flames and there is nothing you can do about it.

She’s so old and worn out, you guys need to find yourself a new idol , not a worn out 33 year old single mom with six kids.

People Mag get to work @ 11/22/2008 at 10:10 am

I hope People get the photos christmas time from the Ethiopian clinic.I want to BUY copies for me,my mom,my sisters.Angelina Jolie on the cover I BUY.

philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081122_Angelina_Jolie__media_genius.html
Angelina Jolie, media genius

WHAT DOES the New York Times business section have in common with US Weekly? Well, now they’ve both used anonymous sources in articles about Angelina Jolie.

But while US’s latest tipster provides lurid details from the set of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” the Times quotes two anonymous insiders involved with the $14 million deal the Jolie and partner Brad Pitt cut with People for the first pictures of their twin daughters in August.

The sources claim that part of the deal put on the auction block was not just money, but that the winning bidder would provide only positive coverage of the Jolie-Pitt family in the future.

The Times investigative piece, titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” yesterday edged out articles on sexy topics like the seized-up credit market and falling grain prices to become the most e-mailed article in the business section.

People, of course, denied that they basically sold editorial content. But as other tabloids delve into the specifics of when exactly Jolie and Pitt first got together (following high-profile comments from Jennifer Aniston in Vogue this month saying that what Jolie did was “uncool”) and whether Pitt was still married at the time, a search of People’s stories on Jolie over the past month turn up . . . something on her new hairdo. The kids being cute. Getting back from doing humintarian work in Afghanistan. Nothing involving Aniston.

Now, perhaps People has come to the conclusion that damn, “Friends” has been off the air for four years now and Jennifer Aniston has done almost nothing with her time since then except make unsuccessful romantic comedies and garner pity from tabloids. Aniston’s cultural relevance is rooted in the ’90s and People would therefore be best served by keeping up a good relationship with the Jolie-Pitts.

* But taking a breather before SatTatt gets too media-wonked out, Hello! Magazine quotes Jolie as saying that first few years of her son Pax’s life in a Vietnamese orphanage were so rough that even after two years of living with fabulously wealthy parents, the 5-year-old still hides food for later. He does it “even though we explain there will be more tomorrow,” Jolie said.

So . . . there’s that. SatTatt hasn’t rescued any hungry children from a probable life of poverty lately, much less three. Therefore, she is willing to overlook the fact that Jolie, who made out with her brother in public, wore around a vial of Billy Bob Thornton’s blood and got serious with the husband of a rather beloved sitcom actress and emerged from it all with a great public image, clearly has all us media folk wrapped around her little finger.

philly.com

Angelina Jolie, media genius

WHAT DOES the New York Times business section have in common with US Weekly? Well, now they’ve both used anonymous sources in articles about Angelina Jolie.

But while US’s latest tipster provides lurid details from the set of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” the Times quotes two anonymous insiders involved with the $14 million deal the Jolie and partner Brad Pitt cut with People for the first pictures of their twin daughters in August.

The sources claim that part of the deal put on the auction block was not just money, but that the winning bidder would provide only positive coverage of the Jolie-Pitt family in the future.

The Times investigative piece, titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” yesterday edged out articles on sexy topics like the seized-up credit market and falling grain prices to become the most e-mailed article in the business section.

People, of course, denied that they basically sold editorial content. But as other tabloids delve into the specifics of when exactly Jolie and Pitt first got together (following high-profile comments from Jennifer Aniston in Vogue this month saying that what Jolie did was “uncool”) and whether Pitt was still married at the time, a search of People’s stories on Jolie over the past month turn up . . . something on her new hairdo. The kids being cute. Getting back from doing humintarian work in Afghanistan. Nothing involving Aniston.

Now, perhaps People has come to the conclusion that damn, “Friends” has been off the air for four years now and Jennifer Aniston has done almost nothing with her time since then except make unsuccessful romantic comedies and garner pity from tabloids. Aniston’s cultural relevance is rooted in the ’90s and People would therefore be best served by keeping up a good relationship with the Jolie-Pitts.

* But taking a breather before SatTatt gets too media-wonked out, Hello! Magazine quotes Jolie as saying that first few years of her son Pax’s life in a Vietnamese orphanage were so rough that even after two years of living with fabulously wealthy parents, the 5-year-old still hides food for later. He does it “even though we explain there will be more tomorrow,” Jolie said.

So . . . there’s that. SatTatt hasn’t rescued any hungry children from a probable life of poverty lately, much less three. Therefore, she is willing to overlook the fact that Jolie, who made out with her brother in public, wore around a vial of Billy Bob Thornton’s blood and got serious with the husband of a rather beloved sitcom actress and emerged from it all with a great public image, clearly has all us media folk wrapped around her little finger.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081122_Angelina_Jolie__media_genius.html
Entire article at link.
Angelina Jolie, media genius

WHAT DOES the New York Times business section have in common with US Weekly? Well, now they’ve both used anonymous sources in articles about Angelina Jolie.

But while US’s latest tipster provides lurid details from the set of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” the Times quotes two anonymous insiders involved with the $14 million deal the Jolie and partner Brad Pitt cut with People for the first pictures of their twin daughters in August.

The sources claim that part of the deal put on the auction block was not just money, but that the winning bidder would provide only positive coverage of the Jolie-Pitt family in the future.

The Times investigative piece, titled “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,” yesterday edged out articles on sexy topics like the seized-up credit market and falling grain prices to become the most e-mailed article in the business section.

People, of course, denied that they basically sold editorial content. But as other tabloids delve into the specifics of when exactly Jolie and Pitt first got together (following high-profile comments from Jennifer Aniston in Vogue this month saying that what Jolie did was “uncool”) and whether Pitt was still married at the time, a search of People’s stories on Jolie over the past month turn up . . . something on her new hairdo. The kids being cute. Getting back from doing humintarian work in Afghanistan. Nothing involving Aniston.

Now, perhaps People has come to the conclusion that damn, “Friends” has been off the air for four years now and Jennifer Aniston has done almost nothing with her time since then except make unsuccessful romantic comedies and garner pity from tabloids. Aniston’s cultural relevance is rooted in the ’90s and People would therefore be best served by keeping up a good relationship with the Jolie-Pitts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/22/hollywood-cops-changeling-film

LAPD blues
Hollywood cops have had a bad rap on screen, says David Stubbs. But could their corruption, cover-ups and racism be even worse in real life?

It’s fair to say that no police department has been given a harder time by Hollywood than its own protection force, LA’s finest. Changeling, the latest Clint Eastwood movie stars Angelina Jolie as a woman whose son is abducted, then “restored” to her by an LAPD anxious to clear their books and boost their profile. Turns out, however, that the boy is an impersonator who read about the kidnapping. Changeling has been preceded, in recent years, by the likes of LA Confidential (1997), Training Day (2001), Street Kings (2008) starring Keanu Reeves, and the upcoming Lakeview Terrace, starring Samuel L Jackson as a malign veteran cop.

Doug Liman get to work @ 11/22/2008 at 10:17 am

79 QQQQ @ 11/21/2008 at 8:59 pm

Entertainment Weekly magazine:

The 50 Sexiest Movies Ever!

3. MR. & MRS. SMITH (2005)

The power couple as action heroes: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made a movie about John and Jane, married assassins who must take each other out with really big guns, which ends up turning them on — on screen and in real life, as it happened.

Sexiest Moment Angry, aroused, and armed to the teeth, they hit the dance floor to surreptitiously pat each other down. Quips hubby to his touchy-feely wife: ”That’s all John, sweetheart.”

Via BaFans
___________________

Doug release the sex scene in Mr and Mrs Smith,I’ll be first in line to buy 2 copies and one for whinny.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117996335.html?categoryId=2022&cs=1

Thesps shift from drama to comedy
Tears, laughs all in a year’s work for contenders
By KRISTOPHER TAPLEY

With roles in both Van Sant’s Harvey Milk biopic and Green’s stoner comedy, Franco is one of just a handful of thesps straddling the line between drama and comedy this year. Brad Pitt (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Burn After Reading”), Meryl Streep (“Doubt,” “Mamma Mia!”), Emma Thompson (“Brideshead Revisited,” “Last Chance Harvey”) and Greg Kinnear (“Flash of Genius,” “Ghost Town”) are a few examples.

Did maniston take out her green contacts,that ugly mug has glasses on in the latest pics,still homely looking,lol,oh mayer let her down easy when you dump her again,lol

One thing is for sure – jolie has the dumbest fans.

You guys are more dumb then her to buy the crap.

has People ever written a negative article about jolie?

Embo
The complete top 10 of E!’s Sexiest Women In The World:
1. Karolina Kurkova
2. Bar Rafaeli
3. Angelina Jolie

*******
Wow Mama Angie in the to 5 and she has was pregnant with twins. The power of the Jolie. Meanwhile, Whiny(X) did the crotch and ass* show throughout Mexico and Malibu and her sympathetic Cable Entertainment News Channel did not put her in the top ten. Low blow. Maybe she will make the top ten whiniest women in the world
1. Rosanne Barr
2. Aniston
3. Elizabeth on the View
4. Aniston
5. Whiny(X)

Mrs. Black @ 11/22/2008 at 10:35 am

I find it very interesting that the week Aniston was featured on the NY Times Magazine, they come out with an article bashing Angelina. I would say JA won the PR prize here, BUT one has to wonder exactly what she and Huvane promised the Times in exchange for the juxtaposition of her on the cover and an article bashing Angie the same week.

I would say the NY Times has some explaining to do, not People.

Good Morning JP fans

I hope everyone is having a great Saturday.

Please check out this great interactive site where Angie reads excerpts from her Congo journal.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/congojournal/

African Girl @ 11/22/2008 at 9:56 am
ALL HAIL THE POWER OF THE JOLIE!!!!

————————————————————————
Love it!!!

# 330 CLINIQUA @ 11/22/2008 at 3:11 am By Access Hollywood 31 minutes ago — E! entertainment television has just named supermodel Karolina Kurkova the sexiest woman in the world. Second place on E!’s sexiest list went to Israeli model Bar Rafaeli, who has been linked to Leonardo DiCaprio. Coming in third was Angelina Jolie, while Tom Brady’s babe, Bundchen, finished fourth and Scarlett Johansson rounded out the top five.

The complete top 10 of E!’s Sexiest Women In The World

1. Karolina Kurkova
2. Bar Rafaeli
3. Angelina Jolie
4. Gisele Bundchen
5. Scarlett Johansson
6. Adriana Lima
7. Heidi Klum
8. Penelope Cruz
9. Manuela Arcuri
10. Shakira

———–

What ? Maniston with her new nose, new lips, new augmented boob, and always “accidentally” seen by the razzi in that tooooo small bikini parading those ass,*** and cooch from Hawaii, Florida, Malibu, Mexico the whole god damn year didn’t make the list , while Angie was pregnant in almost half of the year. was in top 3. hahaha….

I bet Huvaniston is calling E for a recount.

Thanks anoble for the link.

Oh no Mrs Black @ 11/22/2008 at 10:46 am

The score for Angelina is 24%

The score for Jen in the Aricle is 9%

The average for females is 18%

jen and Huvane are p*ssed

The article is saying Angelina is smart she doesn’t pay anyone 15%.

I dont see anyone talking about Jen’s article,people have already forgotten that Jen has a movie coming up.If jen promosed NYT something then she’s the fool we all know,she lost big time.Oh and Angelina has Brad.

just cause OSU and that state up north are playing today!

GO BUCKS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx5TVBf6cWM&feature=related

love it @ 11/22/2008 at 8:25 am

NYTimes, Seeking Page Hits, Finds Backlash

Author: Ryan Adams
22 Nov

For me, the best part of yesterday’s New York Times article about Angelina Jolie is seeing so many of their readers ridicule the Times for stooping to the same supermarket tabloid scandalmongering it pretends to “investigate.”

2. As a PR professional, I find Ms. Jolie more adept at messaging and consistent use of talking points than many who have been in our industry for years. Should she decide to leave the motion picture industry, she’d surely be in high demand as the head of her own agency. Other public figures would do well to study the way she has developed her philanthropy and image – she is a total professional. — Marsha, Santa Cruz, CA

6. Audrey Hepburn’s humanitarian spirit, finely tuned to the 21st century, lives on in Ms Jolie. I can think of no greater compliment. — jordyray, Minneapolis, MN

15. Who cares? It seems to me that your petty account of this is a greater testament to the deplorable state of contemporary culture than a woman who should by any reasonable standards be left alone. Great investigative journalism, pal. — mopface, new york

18. When I started this article, I wanted to snark. But when I ended it I thought, wow, she’s got the beast under control. The media beast didn’t eat her. It’s wearing her collar. Who else can say that? Nobody else in the world. — Patricia, Pasadena, CA
There’s a lot more.

30. I don’t have a problem with this. The magazine money is flowing back to their charities and helping people in war-torn countries. Rock on, Angie. — deb1632, Torrance, CA

34. This story only reminded me that the Times, equally concerned about access to its subjects, has published stories that sell ideas like WMD in Iraq. It’s hard to get worked up about People when the result is celebrity photos. — NoDogInThisFight, Canada

52. Bravo to Angie! She’s put a lease on the monster. If at times they resent it they’ve only themselves to blame. — Peggy, Glens Falls, NY

78. Maybe Angelina should run for VP. At least she has a progressive worldview and doesn’t need protection from witchcraft. Though… I understand Jennifer Aniston is not too pleased with her. — Diane, NJ

82. Ms. Jolie is an amazing actor who is adept at managing her persona. No one should expect they are getting real insights in to any public persons life through People magizine and the like. All media is manipulation. The wise know how to use power to their advantage. Clearly Ms. Jolie uses her power to get what she wants out of life. Good for her. — Thomas, Mansfield, TX

84. Why is this article so prominently placed? It should be buried in the Arts and Leisure section. Unless I sense an editorial shift at work, in which case can we expect tomorrow’s page to feature profiles of WWF celebrities… — Gerald Denis, Boston, MA

108. I admire the tenacity of Angelina Jolie in knowing the limits she wishes to set on her privavcy and on the public image she creates for herself and family. Her humanitarian devotion, love for family and partner and tremendous talent is all that anyone needs to know. We should encourage the press to bring out the positive in everyone. Wouldn’t that change the world and isn’t that what Ms. Jolie is really all about? — LS, Costa Mesa, CA

110. No, this isn’t really news. However, the Times would do well to start documenting the carefully crafted messages and images that the Bush administration threw upon the American people, and the world, for the last 8 years. Now there’s some fancy PR work. — thinkinghurts, los angeles

119. I’m guessing the author of this is an all-American girl type who is still angry that her fellow all-American girl Jennifer Anniston was dumped by Brad Pitt. This article reeks of both jealousy as well as pathetic journalism. This so-called author has turned the New York Times into The Enquirer. — Savi, Chicago

127. Whoever has taken over the front page of this paper must have been hired from the Sun. This actress seems to take the world more seriously than one of the oldest papers in the country. — Inish, America

awards daily

YES YES YES. As I wrote yesterday. The NY Times article made Angelina stronger. A,lot of people who probably never thought about writing about Angelina wrote NY Times to tell them they were wrong or Angelina deserved respect.

Great Review of Benjamin Button. Entire article at link. BEWARE SOME SPOILERS

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=321

The first word on David Fincher’s latest masterpiece…

You probably shouldn’t read this.

You should probably cocoon yourself, avoid speculations or declarations and queue for a ticket on Christmas Day (US) or 22 January (UK), when David Fincher’s The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button will be birthed into the wider world.

You should probably show some self-discipline.

But, you know, we don’t always do what we should.

Still, if you want a pure experience, go away.

If you want a brief reassurance that your money and time and expectations won’t be wasted, know this: The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is brilliant and beautiful and beguiling and any other adulatory adjective you can chuck at a movie. Now go away.

Still curious?

OK.

Pitt’s is a performance so good it could go unnoticed: subtle and seamless and gloriously free from any actorly pretention, any obsequiousness. It could easily be underappreciated amid the sure-to-come hyperbole (here, for starters) about the picture’s digitally-aided aging. And ok, the effects are extraordinary – you see Pitt as a pensioner and then as a young buck, as vital and offensively good looking as he was in Thelma & Louise.

Yet the effect would fall flat were it not founded on his performance – it is his features that express Benjamin in each age: his eyes that show the man’s wit and tenderness, soul and sorrow. The picture takes a long time to reach its sweet spot, the moment where Benjamin and Daisy (Cate Blanchett) can be together, but the long build makes the sequence all the more exhilarating – and heart-breaking.

For, yes, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button may well make your eyes leak. But, you know, so can Lethal Weapon if you’ve had a bad day… In this regard, Fincher’s achievement is not just that the film moves you but that it does so without being cloyingly sentimental.

To credit him is not to diminish Eric Roth’s screenplay – which is a triumph of imagination and expansion, giving substance to themes the F Scott Fitzgerald source story only, at best, hinted at, and soul to characters who were ciphers. But with a needy director, even a fine script can become syrupy vomit.

That potential has always been there with this material – for a film that begs for your affections, that is desperate to ingratiate. This is why the director of Se7en and Fight Club was considered, in some quarters, a curious fit. But it is why he is perfect for it. Instead of crassly manipulating your emotions, Fincher exercises his usual scrupulous control, creating a real world for this ridiculous conceit, ensuring the high concept does not dwarf the people.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button makes you consider the world anew… at least for a moment (but probably for a lot longer). It is about love, yes, and it is about Death: an event as inevitable as the rising of the sun, as the turning of the Earth. To be, perhaps, schmaltzy – in a way the film would never countenance – it says the grave need not

one more for the Michigan fans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq0rDXZKEIQ&feature=related

Ok I’m done picking on them at least until after the game!

African Girl @ 11/22/2008 at 11:05 am

How can anyone think NY Times is Team Aniston??!!

Come on guys, use your heads!!

1) They write an article practically calling Angelina Jolie…THE JOLIE the smartest woman in showbiz…not just showbiz, the BUSINESS WORLD as a whole seeing as they put the article on PAGE 1 of the Media and Advertising Section (Haaaaaaaa!! Rotflmao!), Because of that article…people are imploring YAHOO to learn from Angelina Jolie…THE JOLIE and she is getting praised front, left and center for “Controlling the Beast that is the Media”

2) They write an article…a Q and A article with Jennifer Aniston asking her questions that should be directed at a 6yrs old.

“What is your favorite TV?
“How did you feel seeing yourself on screen for the first time?
“Do you watch friends? Did you ever watch your father on TV?
“How much do you hate camera phone

Goodness Gracious! They are all but telling us there isn’t much going in up there with this woman, so let’s keep it fluffy.

People, People, People…please, think about it coz it couldn’t be more obvious what is going on here, NY TIMES has picked a side and I gotta tell ya, it’s not the side many of you think… except of course if the plan was to make Jennifer Aniston come of more idiotic than she usually does coz they did a FINE JOB of it!! :lol:

Mrs. Black @ 11/22/2008 at 11:06 am

Oh no Mrs Black @ 11/22/2008 at 10:46 am

But don’t you find it interesting that JA comes out on the cover of the mag and then someone at the Times writes an article on AJ and in the terms of another news source (can’t remember it) it is an unprecedented article for the NYT.
Just makes me wonder what went down. I believe JA is the biggest media wh*re out there and would do anything to keep her name relevant. So I jsut wonder what was promised to the Times in return for the juxtaposition of the magazine and the article. That’s all.

I love Angie’s interaction with the kid reporters at the beginning of this vid

Angelina Jolie- Feel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-69QKNZJ4

Andjddd, Has People ever written a negative article about Reese,,Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Cameron Diaz or any other actress

a favorite of mine – love the song

Jolie-Pitt FAMILY Album
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4pr69pCPo

African Girl @ 11/22/2008 at 11:11 am

Yikes! Sorry guys, I posted that on the JA thread.

Please everyone knows People Magazine is celebrity friendly. If t hey have not ***** slapped Whiny(X) and Huvane for all the lies they planted in People Magazine, retraction in other rags and highlighting Jen’s boring every move, then it is safe to say that People Magazine kiss up to celebrities. However, they are the shining light of the Weeklies. US WEAKLY is People’s Magazine evil step sister. Outta Touch and Lies and Lies are 3rd rate cousins.

Oh no Mrs Black @ 11/22/2008 at 10:46 am
The score for Jen in the Aricle is 9%
_________________________________
Hey, that was a joke. In article not mentioned what score Man have. :-D Give Man some credit, how about 10%. Anyone? No? Sold!

from one of my most favorite cyber buddies :)

Angelina & Brad: Memories of Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_K-t-CmQoI

I reads like an article on Teen Beat. Zac and Vanesa can answer such enlightening questions and give a better interview.

African Girl @ 11/22/2008 at 11:05 am

How can anyone think NY Times is Team Aniston??!!

It reads like an article on Teen Beat, Whiny(X) interview in NYT. Can’t watch the morning show and type.

omg, Angie gets mentioned by Everyone – was watching a clip from one of my favorite comedians – Jeff Dunham
his puppet wants Angie to adopt him

whole clip is funny but Angie’s mention comes in at around the 3:25 mark

Jeff Dunham’s Very Special Christmas Special – Peanut part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0iX7uFCn_8

Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer are the biggest fakes and the ones that are more guilty of being bogus. NY Times have turned into shi#.

I do not trust People. They are not telling the truth. They will deny of course, but who will believe them? I don’t for sure.

mimi @ 11/22/2008 at 12:16 pm

# 333
was this vote before of after jolie had a visit to her plastic surgeon.either way you may as well post on this fake b**chs looks because after all she has nothing else to offer,no substance,no morals,no concience,no grip on reality,no mental balance etc etc etc.btw is everything in usa only obtainable if you have ‘looks’ then.

Mrs. Black @ 11/22/2008 at 12:57 pm

topbrit @ 11/22/2008 at 12:44 pm

Gosh you want to talk plastic surgery? Gee, Aniston anyone? Lopez? Kidman? Cruise?
I think you are the deluded one. Angie has a lot more substance than most hollywood stars. But I’m sure your opinion is based on meeting her and after chatting with her over the course of several years.

How did Jennifer Aniston, once America’s Sweetheart, morph into America’s Spinster?

Tags: Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston

Vogue editor Anna Wintour knows how to sell magazines, which explains the “What Angelina Did Was Very Uncool” line on the cover of the December issue next to Jennifer Aniston’s face. The quote was lifted from an interview in which the former Friends star was asked about Angelina Jolie’s gushing to the magazine in 2007 about falling in love with Brad Pitt while he was still hitched to her. Playing Aniston’s first public comment about Jolie so boldly was a master stroke destined to generate epic buzz.

For Aniston, though, the incident ushered in yet another of the “Poor Jen! Duped again!” moments that have dogged her since her 2005 divorce from Pitt. Not only did Vogue exploit Aniston’s tepid smackdown, making her appear obsessed with the siren who stole her husband, it squared the two women off against one another more subtly. Astute fashionistas were quick to note that the cover image of Aniston posed on a beach in a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Narciso Rodriguez gown echoed the cover shot of Jolie in January 2007 in which she rocked a cleavage-displaying, off-the-shoulder, red Bill Blass against a sandy backdrop. Jolie’s cover line, however, was a more triumphant “Why Her Real Life is More Romantic Than Any Movie.” The disparity continued inside: in 2007, Jolie was shown with Pitt and their numerous children; in the current issue, Aniston is pictured with her dog Norman.

Aniston’s Vogue appearance is part of a publicity blitz for her two new movies, Marley & Me, which opens on Dec. 25, and He’s Just Not That Into You, which arrives in February. Neither role, it’s safe to say, will eclipse the one she currently plays in the cultural imagination—that of the archetypal Wronged Wife subject to an endless loop of “Jen Is Devastated!” “Jen Is Furious!” “Jen Gets Revenge!” bogus theorizing. Since her divorce, America’s Sweetheart has morphed into America’s Spinster. The unmarried, childless Aniston has become the tabloids’ Miss Havisham, portrayed as lonely, needy and locked in the past. The website Dlisted.com recently advertised a US$19.95 “Boyfriend Arm Pillow” thus: “Now, every time the Jennifer Aniston in your life calls you, wanting to whine for hours about how they are so f–king lonely and their cats are even giving them the side-eye, you can simply say, ‘Aniston in my life, go canoodle with the Boyfriend Arm Pillow I got you for Christmas.’ ” Celebrity gossip site PerezHilton.com refers to her cruelly as “Maniston.”

Her alleged tribulations sell big time. “We can’t get enough of her,” says Dina Sansing, entertainment director at US Weekly, where every issue features at least one Aniston photo or story. She’s No. 2 on the “Most Valuable Celebrity Faces” of 2008 list in terms of newsstand sales, according to Forbes. (In a rare case of tabloids imitating life, “Poor Jen!” was knocked off her No. 1 perch this year by Jolie.) Women relate to her, says Sansing, a bond that dates back to 1994 when Aniston entered homes as flaky, likeable Rachel Green. Female fans flocked to copy Aniston’s haircut, known as “The Rachel.” And now they rally to share her pain—as well as a schadenfreude thrill.

Aniston’s position atop the tabloid pantheon was cemented with her union with Pitt, whom she met Hollywood cute in 1998 through their mutual agent. The merger of America’s Sweetheart and the World’s Sexiest Man in 2000 was a lavish event that featured a 40-person gospel choir and fireworks over the Pacific. They were the king and queen of the Hollywood prom, with matching tans and blond streaks. When they split Aniston was poised for post-Friends career breakout; initially she was the one blamed for being unwilling to “have Brad’s babies,” to employ tabloid lexicon. When Jolie’s involvement became known, Aniston became the object of sympathy, and pity. After all, what chance did the Girl Next Door have against the Girl From the Next Galaxy? The New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane summed up perception of Jolie’s snaring of Pitt: “She took one look at the world’s most widely desired man and scooped him up with no more ado than a Parisian grande dame tucking a chihuahua into her clutch bag.”

The scandal was likened to Eddie Fisher leaving Debbie Reynolds for Elizabeth Taylor in the ’60s. But back then there wasn’t a celebrity media complex ready to pounce on Reynolds’ every humiliation, real or imagined. For the wounded Aniston, the salt poured down, beginning with an arty 60-page photo spread in the June 2005 W titled “Domestic Bliss,” in which Pitt and Jolie presided over a band of little blond Brads.

Aniston shot back with a tearful Vanity Fair interview in which she admitted to being hurt and lonely and denied rumours that she didn’t want children: “That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will!”

The trendy L.A. store Kitson capitalized on the conflict, selling “Team Aniston” and “Team Jolie” T-shirts. “Team Aniston” outsold 25-to-one in the beginning, reports owner Fraser Ross. Elaine Lui, founder of the popular celebrity gossip blog Laineygossip.com and an eTalk reporter, believes Aniston’s plight taps into female anxiety. “There’s a fear among many women that their husband is going to work one day and hook up with the hot colleague,” she says. “So every time they see Jennifer Aniston’s face they can’t help but feel for her or support her, not because they like her but because they feel a vote for her is a vote for themselves.”

As part of the most mused-upon triangle since Euclid, Aniston’s now intractably tethered to Pitt and Jolie in a perverse geometry: for every “Brangelina’s Baby Joy” headline, there’s the inevitable “Jen Alone in Malibu!” sidebar. In the gravitas sweepstakes, she’s the lesser, a sun lamp eclipsed by a supernova. As Pitt and Jolie tour refugee camps and rebuild New Orleans, she’s photographed bagging rays in Cabo and dating a series of child-men, most lately the singer John Mayer, which sparked the recent Life & Style cover line: “Having More Surgery for John?”

Aniston’s post-Pitt hookups, which include Vince Vaughn, her co-star in The Break-Up, have the whiff of publicity stunt. Lui views Aniston’s relationship with Mayer, whose conquests include Jessica Simpson and who’s nine years her junior, as an attempted “Screw you” to Jolie: “She’s saying, ‘I’m 40 but I can still bag a younger man and change him.’ I almost feel sorry for her talking about her like this, it’s so misguided.”

Aniston’s uterine status is the subject of constant speculation as she approaches the big 4-0. “She’s Having John’s Babies,” announced Star magazine in mid-November, which claimed Aniston was undergoing “secret fertility treatments” to have twins. That same week, In Touch falsely reported it was a fait accompli: “Jen’s Bump Gets Bigger.”

Of course, obsession with celebrity baby bumps drive newsstand sales. “Her fans are interested in her having a traditional husband and house,” says Sansing. “They’re very eager for her to have this life that we all think she’s wanted for some time.”

Aniston’s inability—or unwillingness—to fulfill her perceived maternal destiny is magnified exponentially by Jolie’s and Pitt’s relentless child acquisition; they’ve added an average of 1.6 children per year to their family. Yet Jolie’s Earth Mother status hasn’t interfered with her stellar career. Since 2005, she has made nine movies, two of which generated Oscar buzz.

Aniston has made seven, two with cringe-inducing, too-close-to-life titles. As Fug Girls, New York magazine’s fashion blog, observed: “The Break-Up was bad enough, but He’s Just Not That Into You? Honey, no. There’s self-awareness, and then there’s masochism.”

It’s as if the lens trained on Aniston is fated to dredge up the past. She’s photographed often with former Friends co-star Courteney Cox, reminding the public of Rachel; in a Smart Water ad, she’s surrounded by children of various ethnicities, summoning inevitable comparison to Jolie; her recent guest appearance on 30 Rock as a stalker sent up her real-life victim persona.

Lui believes the focus on Aniston as victim is misbegotten. “I think we need to examine ourselves as a society,” she says. “For some reason we love the soap opera aspect of a weak victim like Jennifer Aniston and the mobilization to rally around her.” She sees Aniston as hostage to her own publicity: “She sold this image of herself and now she can’t shake it. She has become the poster girl for crying yourself to sleep at night.”

It’s a label Aniston tries to shake: “This whole ‘Poor lonely Jen’ thing, this idea that I’m so unlucky in love? I actually feel I’ve been unbelievably lucky in love,” she told Vogue. “Just because at this stage my life doesn’t have the traditional framework to it—the husband and the two kids and the house in Connecticut—it’s mine. It’s my experience. And if you don’t like the way it looks, then stop looking at it!”

That’s not going to happen, especially now that Pitt’s promoting The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which also opens on Dec. 25. Brangelina domestic bliss will be displayed large, as in the “private” photographs Pitt took of Jolie displayed in the November issue of W.

Appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show in mid-November, Aniston tried to distance herself from the breakup: “I don’t go there,” she said. “It’s a hundred years old for Chrissakes.” Still, Winfrey stoked the embers, asking Aniston if she wanted to beat Pitt at the box office. “What am I going to say?” she replied, “Can we do a tie?” No chance of that. The next week, she was “Devastated Jen” once again on the cover of Star, once again the proxy for the real world of broken dreams.

either way you may as well post on this fake b**chs looks because after all she has nothing else to offer,no substance,no morals,no concience,no grip on reality,no mental balance etc etc etc.btw is everything in usa only obtainable if you have ‘looks’ then.
YOU DESCRIBE JEN PERFECTLY

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour: Angelina Jolie’s “Amazing”
Saturday November 22, 2008

Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images; Jason Merritt/FilmMagic
Buzz up!Jennifer Aniston isn’t a fan of Angelina Jolie, but Christiane Amanpour sure is.

“Angelina does an amazing job in terms of her capacity to highlight issues and problems around the world and with her humanitarian and human rights work,” Amanpour, who is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN, told Usmagazine.com at the Justice & Human Rights Bridge Dedication Gala on Wednesday in NYC. She said she has no plans to interview the celeb.

Jolie recently visited Afghanistan as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Refugee Agency where she met with refugees who had recently returned to their homes.

In September, Jolie and Brad Pitt gave $2 million to fund a children’s health clinic in Ethiopia, where their 3-year-old daughter Zahara was born.

See Brangelina’s family album.

The center, which will focuse on serving children with tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, is run by the Global Health Committee.

“It is our hope when Zahara is older, she will take responsibility of the clinic and continue its mission,” Pitt said in a statement.

The Jolie-Pitts run a similar clinic in Cambodia — where their 7-year-old son Maddox was born — called Maddox Chivan Children’s Center.

“Our goal is to transfer the success we have had in Cambodia to Ethiopia where people are needlessly dying of tuberculosis, a curable disease, and HIV/AIDS, a treatable disease,” Jolie said in a statement.

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/christiane-amanpour-angelina-jolies-amazing

http://www.accesshollywood.com/angelina-jolie-call-me-and-clint-clintelina_article_12303

LONDON, U.K. –

Almost every day, world-famous couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are referred to in the news as “Brangelina” — and the “Changeling” star said she doesn’t mind, despite rumors to the contrary.

“Honestly, I don’t have a thought either way,” she told the U.K.‘s Telegraph. “Although on the set of ‘Changeling,’ [director] Clint [Eastwood] was calling us ‘Clintelina.’ I think that sounds funnier.”

The New York Times reported on Thursday that the term, a combination of their names, “irked” the couple, and noted its absence in People Magazine’s August 18 cover story — alleging that People traded “positive coverage” of the couple in exchange for the right to buy the first pictures of their newborn twins, Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon. A People rep told the Times the accusations were “categorically false.”

But talking to the Telegraph, Angelina seemed more concerned about spending time with her clan than who called her what. While she told the newspaper she and Brad were “sure” their growing family would keep expanding, the actor’s latest film, Quentin Tarantino’s World War II drama “Inglourious ********,” has kept him away from their six kids.

“I’ve not been on the set of ‘Inglourious ********,’ she said, joking, “this is a Tarantino film, so we’re thinking, ‘What’s a good day to bring children on set?”

Still, being in Germany for Brad’s latest movie has had its upside.

“Traveling with the family is fun,” she said. “The other day, when we flew from LA to Germany, all of us had terrible jet-lag. The children kept waking up, so we all got up, turned on the TV, made snacks, and were up until 4 AM. We laughed our heads off — the kids are some of the funniest people Brad and I have ever met.”

All stars mulipulate the media for P.R. , promote there movies ect. (ALL) thats nothing new..

Oh listen oh stupid one (#388 & #389)

People is not a RAG like US or L&S and the rest. They are an entertainment news magazine. They don’t bring people down just for a buck. Oh please tell me when have they ever written anything snarky or bad about anyone including your idol. Their reputation is know. So STFU.

I don’t know what is happening with my post. So please forgive me if this shows up twice. The way JJ is going it might show up at all. Peace

Good morning to all BAMPZSKV fans. I hope everyone is having a wonderdul Saturday. I know it is snowing in some places, therefore be careful walking and driving. It’s raining here, snowing in the mountains.

bdj, thanks for the wonderful articles. I so look forward to reading what you find.

African Girl, really good comments. ITAWY.

Isn’t it beautiful to see all of the positive reaction being generated for Angie? Last night I tried to post comments concerning a segment Showbiz Tonight on Angie. I traced the beginning of her humanitarian works describing how she did this and how it went unnoticed.

They showed the countries she visited and how dangerous it was. The chronicaled how she came to adopt Maddoc, her involvement in the UN, awards received, the meeting of Brad, no mention of x. The adoption of Z, Shiloh, and Pax.They also talked about Brad’s makeitright, and the joliepitt foundation.

I thought it was very good and positive. This is abrupt change for SBT when you concern that last week they were running her over the coals over that stupid and childish uncool statement. But I will accept this as it was honest and it talked about her good works.

Plus there was a survey where 63% said for it was time for x to move on. 37% disagreed.

I sincerely hope the triangle is dying. People respect Angie and Brad and their family. And so do I.

guli, please check your e-mail. Peace

passing Through @ 11/22/2008 at 2:01 pm

OT -

When I read the tabs on Thursday for some reason the Peeps wasn’t on the shelf yet. I was at Wal-mart earlier and decided to look through the Hugh Jackman pix…never actually made it to the story… Anylusting…I was looking through the rest of their pix and I hope their graphic artists got a bonus for this issue…because they Photoshopped the hell out of almost every picture. I barely recognized Daniel Craig! He’s sexy because of his ruggedness…he’s not sexy because he’s pretty, Peeps! Step away from the Photoshop tools and leave the pix alone! They Photoshopped the pix so much that even the guys in the “Under 21″ section looked younger than they are. And who was smoking crack and chose the oldest Jonas brother instead of the one who cheated on Taylor Swift? No offense to the tweeners, but the oldest one is kinda fug.

But…that’s not the hilarity I wanted to share. If you decided to go flip through the mag…check out the placement of the X article – which really just 4 paragraphs and one of them is about Brad and Angie! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How pathetic does your life have to be if a 4 paragraph story on you uses 1 of the paragraphs to talk about your comments about your ex and his new squeeze? The Urinator is gonna be pissed because he barely got a mention…but Brad and Angie got a whole paragraph! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Those two losers deserve each other…

Sooooo…what was so special about the placement of the X 1 photo & 4 paragraphs article? It came after a 4 PAGE feature on the ho who caused Eliot Spitzer his political career. FOUR. PARGES. NOT. FOUR. PARAGRAPHS. BBBBWWWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Sooooo…do ya think X was mad when she got her copy of Peeps and saw that she’s not as important – or interesting – as a two-bit ho from Jersey? Now THAT is what’s called poetic justice.

I have a question….do you guys think that Angie will give the axe to NYT and to Anne Wintour just like she gave it to E!’s Ryan Seacrest?

Could you post the Oprah links again if you have them handy, anybody? I tried to look for them on the old thread, but JJ is so slow, it’s frustrating. Thanks in advance.

an oldie @ 11/22/2008 at 2:33 pm
Could you post the Oprah links again if you have them handy, anybody? I tried to look for them on the old thread, but JJ is so slow, it’s frustrating. Thanks in advance.

——————————————————————————–
came into the kitchen for more chips (Buckeyes are kicking b*tt) here’s the links

Brad Pitt on Oprah 19-11-08 part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ee0wNfwu7k

Brad Pitt on Oprah 19-11-08 part 2
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYWXN0LWSdA&feature=related

Thank you so much, anoble. You are a lifesaver.

Reposting @ 11/22/2008 at 2:56 pm

wonderful comments on Angelina from Christiane Amanpour…love her…to add to that – reposting from this morning’s neer post! Thanks neer!

neer @ 11/22/2008 at 2:27 am I want to share the following quotes (of various personalities) to the people who are cynical about Angie’s motive in doing her share in helping others:

“What she has done transcends her physical beauty and really reminds us that it’s what is in the heart, and I really want to commend her for what she’s done in such a serious and thoughtful way.” (Hillary Clinton)

“I don’t know Angelina Jolie, but I admire her work.” (Barack Obama)

“Celebrities are doing the work that journalists are not. We can’t afford to be cynical about that….Can you really strike out against Angie and Bono?…Sure, there’s an opinion backlash. People think they are doing it for some sort of ego trip. But the people who are expressing that opinion? What are they doing?” (Marianne Pearl)

“Angie roughs it. She lives with us in the forest and eats the crickets and the cockroaches the locals eat without thinking twice about it. Whenever I read in magazines about her ‘glorious house in Cambodia,’ I think, What? It’s a shack. I don’t think people believe she has the ability to abandon everything in the West and transpose herself to a situation with malaria and dengue fever and the most extreme poverty. I read about her ‘Hollywood life.’ Well, you can’t live a Hollywood life in this part of Cambodia.” (Stephen Bognar)

“Their participation has been absolutely essential to the mainstreaming of these global issues into American life, which is why I find so ridiculous the cynicism, the pundits who disdain this. They misunderstand how our society works, and they misjudge these people, their leadership. No good deed goes unpunished, and it’s certainly true of this activity. Angelina goes at it with utter honesty, hard work and a deep feeling for the common faith of humanity. There’s no doubt about that or about her love for her children. And yet the amount of chattering that goes on about it is endless and preposterous, in my view” (Jeffrey Sachs)

“OK.Now, your daughter, Angelina Jolie. You know, we checked her out. I don’t know whether you know this or not. Big investigation on her. And we found out she walks the walk, that she gives all the money, millions of dollars and this and that. (Bill O’Reilly talking to Jon Voight)

“What I don’t understand is the media’s criticism (of Jolie’s) involvement in humanitarian aide and why they question her motives and sincerity..It’s like, Who cares? She’s doing a good job and putting so much of her time and money in the causes.” (Tea Leoni)

“These people don’t need additional focus or respect. I’m not that cynical at all. Angelina has given not only her time, but her money to assist people who need it most….In the past, entertainers have usually led selfish and egotistical lives so I like it when I see people like Angelina trying so hard. I think she has raised some awareness and that she has an extremely good heart.” (Mia Farrow)

“Her going to Haiti really helped my foundation. It was in a time where she was still pregnant. Haiti being the most dangerous place in the world, for Angelina Jolie to land there—while pregnant—that’s gangster. We respect that to the T.“ (Wyclef Jean)

“I like them (Angelina & Brad) very much…They’re bright, interested in what’s going on, open to everything, ready to grab everything they can out of life. They’re not wasting a lot of time being movie stars. They’re taking advantage of it to see, listen and learn. “(Leslie Caron)

“I want to congratulate Angelina because it’s been a very long time since I’ve been in this business and I’ve never met a person who has such a good balance between family life, humanitarian efforts, ..and all the extraordinary work that she does in addition to this.” (Dustin Hoffman)

“I think her humanitarian position has just changed the way actresses and people in the industry think about what they can actually do … to help the world,” (Marc Bauer)

“Angelina Jolie…just seeing an actress who has been through it all and who doesn’t care what other people say about her — someone who has forged her own path.” (Olivia Wilde)
_______________________

an oldie @ 11/22/2008 at 2:45 pm

Thank you so much, anoble. You are a lifesaver.
————————————————————————————
you’re welcome – with 10 teenagers cheering at the tv, I needed the break!

Reposting @ 11/22/2008 at 2:58 pm

Reposting….

_____________________

BrooksBarnesEXPOSED @ 11/22/2008 at 2:52 am Interesting…from awards….

Mary B.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 am

The posts supporting and/or defending Angelina Jolie here are simply a direct result of ridiculous attacks on her. No sane person likes unfair attacks on others. I love how we are supposed to be in a cult of Angelina lovers. I’d say that just the opposite seems to exist because I keep reading the same bizarre words and accusations against her in a lot of places on the net. That cannot be a coincidence.

There are a few certified Jolie attackers here who don’t make a whit of sense babbling on about her as if she is the devil incarnate. Has this site attracted some fundamentalist cult?

As for the NY Times piece, I also cannot believe the criticisms in it over essentially nothing. The article is pretty much a lot of hot air. It offfers up more speculation and extrapolation than it does facts. What in the world is it “exposing”?

It has become quite the thing to attack strong women who take control of their lives and try to do some good in the world. That seems to be all I am doing this year – defending strong women who attract ridiculously over the top criticism. I am all for more female power.

Is someone here really attacking the Jolie Pitt Foundation? Please. Its tax filings are online for all to see as have been the tax forms for Jolie’s other foundation. The JP Foundation makes very generous donations to many causes I also believe in. I don’t see how anyone can criticize their generosity with a straight face. No foundation distributes all its money or it would cease to exist. Do people really not understand this basic concept?

For the record, the NY Times piece was written by the same “reporter” who did such a terrible job reporting on the WGA strike last year. Brooks Barnes earned a reputation as a hack when he pretty much bought everything the studio moguls, publicists and production companies sold him – also anonymously – and was handed his ass by the writers out there. Take a whiff of him at Nikki Finke’s site – a number of reporters and bloggers completely deconstruct his articles during the strike.

Little Brooks Barnes is also a wannabe screenwriter.
_____________

42-7 Buckeyes

Hey all! Just a quick note to say..love the comments and blurbs from all, thanks always, especially to bdj…I was serious about subscribing to People and telling them why! lolol

Bottomline, for those in the know, and those out of it – everyone knows that People’s coverage is typically only informative or favorable to celebs, they don’t lie or bash anyone, so why would Angelina or Brad have to curry favor.

All I know is, if People is even close to thinking Aniston and her PR are behind their smear job, she will be persona non grata at People.

I kept noticing that though People has consistently run the Aniston blurbs they’ve been told to run by Huvane (Aniston’s beach outings, Aniston’s concert outings, recent info about Aniston and Peeboy dining out with her Dad, eyewitness reports of how they acted and why, etc.)…one thing that struck me funny was though they did what they were told by Huvane, they always added something – like a round of cocktails, Maniston chain smoking, this last time, Mayer “was nervous and texting furiously under the table.”

I laughed my ass off, because with that one line, whatever ‘positive’ Huvane THOUGHT he was passing on, got blown out of the water. Hahahaha
.
I determined a while ago that People Mag, or someone at People mag didn’t really like getting the missives from Aniston’s PR to write that mundane stupid sh*t…and so was having a bit of fun. People knows where the bodies are buried.

If Huvane is the one who fed People to the idiot reporter at the nyt, aniston will pay.

Yeah, GO BUCKS – Little Animal was awesome

Party Like a Buckeye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVqO8_v-0c

I wonder why the tabs that can’t stand Angie like Star, IT and L&S haven’t put the NYT article on their website unlike last month with the quote about the kids seeing MMS when they get older

That NYTimes article might backfire Angie is being called a media genius ,a post on Cnet says why can’t Yahoo control their image like AJ. AJ :Oscar winner actress, director ,humanitarian,publicist,mother of 6,partner to 2 time sexiest man alive and MIR founder Brad Pitt .

dina #1 427

This is abrupt change for SBT when you concern that last

That should read, This is an abrupt change SBT when you consider that last

Sorry about that. Peace

# 440 cassie @ 11/22/2008 at 3:34 pm
I wonder why the tabs that can’t stand Angie like Star, IT and L&S haven’t put the NYT article on their website unlike last month with the quote about the kids seeing MMS when they get older
===================

Good point. I like conspiracy theories, so I think the MMS quote was put in the first NYT article on purpose to bring back an old topic so to allow Maniston to throw Pity Party 2. Without the MMS quote, Maniston would look petty to rehash an old grief. With it, people will say she had all the right to say what she said. That’s why the MMS was blown out of proportion by Huvane’s paid tabloids, just a week before the Rogue cover surfaced.

# 440 cassie @ 11/22/2008 at 3:34 pm

I don’t think it has anything to do with rather they like/dislike her, but it has everything to do with generating revenue. Let’s face it. Angelina is hot and sells gossip. A lot of people, fans/nonfans, are curious about her.

thanksgiving @ 11/22/2008 at 4:53 pm

Sammy @ 11/21/2008 at 11:38 pm
I believe the New York Times. There was also a article in a over-seas
paper last week that they were investigating charties. They have
been given 18 Million or more for pictures, also she is suppose to give 1/3 of her wages. Yet they published that they donated the amount shown by the Times in 2006 which is well below the
amount they earned. Is it shown on paper anywhere that he really
donated the money $5 million to New Orleans or is it the people
that have donated to his fund that are paying for it?
===================================================
You’re so DUMB !!!!

1) Learn to read tax return and learn the term “calendar year”, meaning you DONT lump 2006, 2007, 2008 earnings into 1 year in your accusation. The 18M mentioned in your post is a cumulative of several years of picture fees. Your mistake: you LUMPED them together.

When the NYT wrote, “…………………..According to federal filings, the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, the entity through which Mr. Neilson says the couple distributes photo money, has given grants of about $2 million since its creation in 2006…….”

The reporter is talking about 2M for 2006. So far, there’s only the 2006 tax return available for the public. (Note, the foundation was created sometime in July 2006).

You CANNOT compare 2M given vs 18M received. You NEED to wait until 2007 and 2008 return to come in before you start comparing.

2) Please understand a foundation is a separate legal tax entity and is required to file a tax return with the IRS, Note, this tax return is NOT the same as Brad and Angie’s personal tax return. Any money contributed to the foundation belongs to the foundation. It is NO longer Brad and Angie’s money although they have the right to say where the money goes. Neither Brad nor Angie can use any of the money for personal reason. The foundation’s tax return is public record.

3) The deadline for 2007 tax return is 5/15/08. And with 3 months extension which many corporations always apply, we wont see the 2007 return until sometime in 2009.

Therefore, until you have all the facts and figures, your saying they donated well below the amount received only showed your IGNORANCE in your understanding of foundation, contrbution, tax etc.

passing Through @ 11/22/2008 at 5:07 pm

# 353 UK fans @ 11/22/2008 at 5:11 am

The photos in kenya were taken by Mr paparazzi who is from the UK.He is always on the UK tele talking about how they followed Angelina and Brad All through the filming of Mr and Mrs Smith.There was in programme in 2005 on UK television about the paprazzi,one person they followed was Angelina all over the UK.

They lived outside Angelina’s UK home and followed her everywhere,shopping,airport and film sets.Mr paparazzi said they followed Brad to Kenya and took those pictures.They.ve got pictures of Brad’s every step to Kenya.He says he made one million and it remains one of his biggest selling pictures to date.He has written a book about paps pictures,B and A are featured and he tells how he got the pictures.US bought the pictures for $500 000 and he sold them in other countries as well.B and A had nothing to do with those pictures.UK fans will know who Mr paparazzi is he appears on LK today sometimes.He glotes about being the one who got the pictures,US bought the pictures from him.

++++++++++++++++++++

ROTFLMAO. Whuh? Janice Min lie? Now there’s an novel thought…

Report Abuse
# 422
Ms.JOLIE4ever! @ 11/22/2008 at 1:11 pm

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour: Angelina Jolie’s “Amazing”
Saturday November 22, 2008
__________________________________________

Too bad the source is USMagazine. That disqualifies the article because US is a tabloid and knowing their history they can never be trusted. Now, People magazine, I am inclined to trust them.

Dear neil,

It’s a quote idiot. Not even US rag is that stupid.

When you have someone other than Botox-Arquettes praising Jen, let us know.

420 move on @ 11/22/2008 at 1:04 pm

Either way you may as well post on this fake b**chs looks because after all she has nothing else to offer, no substance, no morals, no conscience, no grip on reality, no mental balance, etc etc etc. Btw, is everything in the usa only obtainable if you have ‘looks’ then.
YOU DESCRIBE JEN PERFECTLY.
——-
In the shallow world of Hollywood, it is certainly easier if one is good-looking. If one isn’t, there are plenty of surgeons who offer help! That’s the world she seems very happy in. It’s all she needs.
It doesn’t look like she is interested in growing. She’s not the only one. There are plenty of her around in Hollywood. She is talked about only because she is BP’s ex.

Papa Pitt on chanel 4 UK SPY GAMES.HOTNESS

New York Times is turning to be a tabloid by trashing Anige because they are jealous of People. Angie is such a powerful person and NYT wants to get controversy going and get in the bandwagon to attract readers. Their approach went down the drain. They will be bankrupt soon.

CLINIQUA @ 11/22/2008 at 5:36 pm

Don’t get your knickers in a knot Cliniqua. The comment was my opinion about using USMagazine as a source. Your rudeness is misdirected.

passing Through @ 11/22/2008 at 6:23 pm

# 366 LUCEABB @ 11/22/2008 at 8:11 am

You want to see prove that there is a move on to hurt Angie?? LOOK AT US WEB SITE. NO MENTION OF ANGIE OR THIS ARTICLE WHY???
Us weekly have had Angie on their site EVERY DAY for the last few weeks dissecting every word she says in her interviews, telling the public what a bad person she is, then suddenly one of the most reported and discussed articles about Angie and her “manipulating the press” shows up; an article quoting Us Weakly and suddenly they have nothing to say? mmmmmm {whisper— stupid public— you are not suppose to notice}

+++++++++++++++++++++

If the NYT story isn’t on the US website, then put it down to the simple fact that one of the main sources in the article is US WEEKLY! It’s bad journalism to cite yourself. What were they going to say in the article? “The New York Times cites US Weekly as a major source of information on Angelina Jolie’s PR tactics – even though we’ve previously lied about many aspects of Ms. Jolie’s life.” Uh…I doubt it…

GO BEARS! Climbed all over the Stanford tree!

passing Through @ 11/22/2008 at 6:23 pm

# 366 LUCEABB @ 11/22/2008 at 8:11 am

You want to see prove that there is a move on to hurt Angie?? LOOK AT US WEB SITE. NO MENTION OF ANGIE OR THIS ARTICLE WHY???
Us weekly have had Angie on their site EVERY DAY for the last few weeks dissecting every word she says in her interviews, telling the public what a bad person she is, then suddenly one of the most reported and discussed articles about Angie and her “manipulating the press” shows up; an article quoting Us Weakly and suddenly they have nothing to say? mmmmmm {whisper— stupid public— you are not suppose to notice}

+++++++++++++++++++++

If the NYT story isn’t on the US website, then put it down to the simple fact that one of the main sources in the article is US WEEKLY! It’s bad journalism to cite yourself. What were they going to say in the article? “The New York Times cites US Weekly as a major source of information on Angelina Jolie’s PR tactics – even though we’ve previously lied about many aspects of Ms. Jolie’s life.” Uh…I doubt it…

=============================================

ITA. This definitely makes sense!!! US Weekly can’t cite itself.

I think that NY has exaggerated the story. But some of the stuff they are accusing her of is really not that bad and hard to understand. Who wouldnt want to see what is being written about them first. If she orchestrates photoshoots for her charity it is to bring awareness. I do not believe for a minute that she tips the paps to where she will be taking her children. Asking reporters to focus on the movie makes common sense. Since they dont have enough sense to not talk about something trival. I do think the letter thing with AMH ws excessive but oh well nothing to hang her for. Its so funny to me and amazes me how hard people have tried and the lengths they will go to, to try and bring her down yet she keeps doing her thing.. Beautiful, successful, loving family, one of the most popular and talented and loved by millions.
All of this other BS… just doesnt matter.

Lately everyone has been outing fraudison as a media manipulator. The blogs have all started clearly calling faud on her timed relationships and mayerfakeness and coat tail riding.
To deflect looks like huvane has turned it into angie.
I’d buy the paper that decides to write the expose on x skeletons.

# 398 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:52 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, I concede the field, but your lame hockey team will NEVER beat my Redwings!

# 374 milla @ 11/22/2008 at 9:46 am liar
+++++++++++++++
I think you should follow that up with “pants on fire”

german fans @ 11/22/2008 at 8:02 pm

what a hot couple!

they deserve happiness.May God bless them and the kids.

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080519/293.jolie.pitt.051908.jpg

ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 7:52 pm

# 398 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:52 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, I concede the field, but your lame hockey team will NEVER beat my Redwings!
—————————————————————————–
LOL – you know I wasn’t including you in that Michigan diss :) but the Bucks did own that field today.

How are you? sent you kinda a long-*ss email earlier – in case you have trouble sleeping.

420 annie @ 11/22/2008 at 1:02 pm That’s not going to happen, especially now that Pitt’s promoting The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which also opens on Dec. 25. Brangelina domestic bliss will be displayed large, as in the “private” photographs Pitt took of Jolie displayed in the November issue of W.

Appearing on the Oprah Winfrey Show in mid-November, Aniston tried to distance herself from the breakup: “I don’t go there,” she said. “It’s a hundred years old for Chrissakes.” Still, Winfrey stoked the embers, asking Aniston if she wanted to beat Pitt at the box office. “What am I going to say?” she replied, “Can we do a tie?” No chance of that. The next week, she was “Devastated Jen” once again on the cover of Star, once again the proxy for the real world of broken dreams.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh Puleeeeeze!
“I don’t go there,” she said. “It’s a hundred years old for Chrissakes.”

My A$$
She goes there every chance she gets. Don’t blame Oprah It is her face on the cover of Vogue with the statement about Jolie. In every interview she does, someone askes her about it and she always, always ALWAYS responds, with I don’t talk about it, but……

Someone made up the story that they do not like to be called Brangelina. I knew she did not care either way. Thanks whoever posted the article about her being asked about it.

# 412 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 11:24 am omg, Angie gets mentioned by Everyone – was watching a clip from one of my favorite comedians – Jeff Dunham
his puppet wants Angie to adopt him

whole clip is funny but Angie’s mention comes in at around the 3:25 mark

Jeff Dunham’s Very Special Christmas Special – Peanut part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0iX7uFCn_8
+++++++++++++
OMG I have loved Peanut for YEARS!

have a care @ 11/22/2008 at 8:20 pm

Dear First and last post,

the link was not posted but oldie received the answer she requested. you have to realize that this is an open website, that is infiltrated all the time with haters and trolls.

When other niche sites post things favorable it is sometimes in our best interests to not lead these vicious haters to the trough so to speak.

In other words these are sites who do not necessarily want to be inundated with ‘team’ sh*t, and who will come to their own correct conclusions without the shrill hater screams of ‘homewrecker,’ following fans to the site.

Capiche? So have a care as to what you post, and why – and make sure that that doesn’t happen.

german fans @ 11/22/2008 at 8:02 pm

what a hot couple!

they deserve happiness.May God bless them and the kids.

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080519/293.jolie.pitt.051908.jpg
——————————————————————————————-
Love that picture – reminded me of this video

All Dressed up in Love: Brad & Angelina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYSrWIhQ0ek

OT for Anoble

463 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 8:02 pm ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 7:52 pm

# 398 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:52 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, I concede the field, but your lame hockey team will NEVER beat my Redwings!
—————————————————————————–
LOL – you know I wasn’t including you in that Michigan diss but the Bucks did own that field today.

How are you? sent you kinda a long-*ss email earlier – in case you have trouble sleeping.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I got it! I am going to answer it tonight.
I heard about the game….I have a personal grudge against the wolverines because when I was in grad school, every semester my tuition included $160.00 for athletics. Even though we didn’t get tickets and it was arbitrary. My grad school text books cost about 800.00 every semester so I would gripe about that fee for the first month of every semester.

I also gripe about daylight saivings time in the Spring when I lose and hour of sleep for a month.

I gripe about people in line in front of me at when they stay on their cell phones.

When I get older I will gripe about everything just to embarrass my kids, (really loud too) even if it doesn’t bother me! Muhahahahahah

OT for Anoble

463 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 8:02 pm ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 7:52 pm

# 398 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:52 am
+++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, I concede the field, but your lame hockey team will NEVER beat my Redwings!
—————————————————————————–
LOL – you know I wasn’t including you in that Michigan diss but the Bucks did own that field today.

How are you? sent you kinda a long-*ss email earlier – in case you have trouble sleeping.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I got it! I am going to answer it tonight.
I heard about the game….I have a personal grudge against the wolverines because when I was in grad school, every semester my tuition included $160.00 for athletics. Even though we didn’t get tickets and it was arbitrary. My grad school text books cost about 800.00 every semester so I would gripe about that fee for the first month of every semester.

I also gripe about daylight saivings time in the Spring when I lose and hour of sleep for a month.

I gripe about people in line in front of me at when they stay on their cell phones.

When I get older I will gripe about everything just to embarrass my kids, (really loud too) even if it doesn’t bother me! Muhahahahahah

Hello to all JP fans…

It was Saturday football for moi and my Buckeyes beat UM again for 5 straight years…Sorry Alex…I already took down my Muck Fichigan flag…since I don’t want to gloat too much :-)

I like this video…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USbiYQr1vtw

ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 8:35 pm
I got it! I am going to answer it tonight.
I heard about the game….I have a personal grudge against the wolverines because when I was in grad school, every semester my tuition included $160.00 for athletics. Even though we didn’t get tickets and it was arbitrary. My grad school text books cost about 800.00 every semester so I would gripe about that fee for the first month of every semester.

I also gripe about daylight saivings time in the Spring when I lose and hour of sleep for a month.

I gripe about people in line in front of me at when they stay on their cell phones.

When I get older I will gripe about everything just to embarrass my kids, (really loud too) even if it doesn’t bother me! Muhahahahahah
————————————————————————–
LOL – well, we avenged your extra fees today! so you’re going to be one of those old ladies. :)

ebmo @ 11/22/2008 at 8:14 pm

# 412 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 11:24 am omg, Angie gets mentioned by Everyone – was watching a clip from one of my favorite comedians – Jeff Dunham
his puppet wants Angie to adopt him

whole clip is funny but Angie’s mention comes in at around the 3:25 mark

Jeff Dunham’s Very Special Christmas Special – Peanut part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0iX7uFCn_8
+++++++++++++
OMG I have loved Peanut for YEARS!
———————————————————————-
I had never seen him until tlol1365 sent me some clips earlier this year. I absolutely love Peanut – I like Walter but Peanut is my fave. I sent Neleh some vids earlier today to cheer her up.

Great new trailer of CCOBB! Maybe it has been posted ..sorry if it’s a duplicate :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43kWJSEdCw

from pittwatch @ 11/22/2008 at 9:03 pm

http://www.pittwatch.com/

A few people have requested that I start a new discussion thread to talk about the New York Times article that talks about Angelina Jolie’s “carefully orchestrated image”. Ask and ye shall receive!

I read the piece this afternoon. If you haven’t read it yourself yet, you can find it right here.

I honestly don’t really know what to make of it. It’s like the author couldn’t decide whether it was positive or negative. First it starts off stating that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wanted a great deal of input in the issue of People that ran the debut photos of Knox and Vivienne Jolie-Pitt.

On the other hand, the article seems to praise the fact that while most celebrities will try to create the media image that they want, they do so with a team of people, whereas Angelina Jolie has no publicist or agent to help her. She generally does it all herself with a bit of help from her manager. The article says:

Jennifer Lopez, who sold pictures of her twins to People for an estimated $6 million in February, has a team of eight to help her navigate such situations. Ms. Jolie, 33, has her cellphone, a lawyer and Mr. Kosinski (and, of course, the counsel of her partner, Mr. Pitt). Getty Images handled the photography and some negotiations.

They also quote a source as saying that Angelina “is scary smart” but that she also has a fantastic knack for “knowing how to shape a public image”.

The words sound positive and to me they are – because being a celebrity involves promoting yourself. But it still comes out sounding like a criticism, as though Angelina is doing something that no one else does – including Brad.

Part of being a star is branding yourself and they all do it. Most notoriously would be people like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan but they make Angelina sound like she’s something other than genuine, as though all of Hollywood is pristine and she’s doing something underhanded or covert. It’s ridiculous.

They (NYT) also claimed that Angelina sets up photos for the paparazzi but they claim no reputable – or even non-reputable! – source for this. I don’t think it’s true. They don’t need to set up photo opps. Why would you need to call the press when they’re all camped outside your home/hotel/hospital? It’s a little strange to me that they would try to pass that off as true, but naturally people will believe this.

Another point they make is that Angelina allowed for photos of her and Maddox, but that she insisted they include coverage of her charity work.

Again, it smacks of being nasty and critical. What’s wrong with that? She has always said that she knew cameras would follow her everywhere so they should just go ahead and follow her to the places that need the attention. If she was all about promotion it would be requests to talk about her movies. Instead she wants to talk about war-torn areas of the world and the refugees who suffer through them, but somehow that gets a negative spin from this article.

There’s a quote that really got my back up:

“Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy,” said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.

I wonder when Mr. Levine last did something selfless for anyone. How much money he donates to charity. If he’s ever sat with refugees in a third world country, trying to help.

I feel like the article tried to pass itself off as positive but it all comes out feeling very sarcastic, as though the author is looking down on Angelina.

Alexanderina @ 11/22/2008 at 9:08 pm

# 471 guli @ 11/22/2008 at 8:38 pm

Hi Guli, congrats on your team victory. My team sucks this season. I seriously can’t watch them play anymore.

german fans @ 11/22/2008 at 9:09 pm

irma @ 11/22/2008 at 10:19 am

I bought a tabloid magazine here in Germany not because I read nor speak German but saw the X & Angie’s pictures on the side bar when you flipped the pages they have some stories about them. Here are some part of it(if somebody can translate it for me Please do so)Jetzt rechnet Jennifer ab.Sie sind uberall Konkurrentinnen…familie…..Medien…body.
How about this one : Er will einfach nur noch weg von Angelina.
God bless the Jolie-Pitt’s.
It is snowing here in Heidelberg,Germany.
————————————————————————–
its tabloid garbage!

it refers to x vogue interview and her ‘uncool’ statement. there are also some bitter hags in germany,who buy these tabs.

Er will einfach nur noch weg von Angelina.
translation: he(brad) wants to get away from Angelina.

some german tabs buy the stories from the us and act like they did some research.they are sometimes worser than the vile ones from the us and they are mostly anistonfriendly.

Alexanderina @ 11/22/2008 at 9:08 pm –you guys really did have a tough season…but we didn’t do great either!!! But we’ll be co-champs of big ten with Penn State..I wish MSU could have beaten Penn State..but still it was a respectable year for us … UM..really has been in a slump…I honestly like it better when the rivalry means much more..I miss those years. Anyhoo…OSU vs. UM is always very special…

http://x17video.com/celebrity_video/angelina_jolie/angie_brad_on_a_romantic_dinne.php

I never saw this at the time, the video above. :-D

It’s from this datenight below…

Brad and Angelina enjoyed the company of Clint Eastwood and his wife.

A source told US magazine all about the double date: “The whole group was extremely animated, clapping their hands and laughing out loud like they were old friends,

“Brad was overheard talking about throwing rotten eggs as a kid, and Dina (Clint’s wife) was telling the Pitts that they should take their kids to the aquarium.

The source also revealed happened when Angelina and Brad left the restaurant. The source told US magazine they: “looked at each other and kissed inside the doorway,

“Angelina was relaxed and pointed out a few pictures on the wall and asked Brad what he thought as she put her jacket on.

“Brad was just staring at her and grabbed her and kissed her again, pulling her in close as everyone in the restaurant looked on.”

(((((Swoon)))))

german fans @ 11/22/2008 at 9:21 pm

i wanna congratulate Angelina Jolie for keeping low profile in Germany! there were some bitter hags in german blogs complaining about her media presence,before she and the family headed to berlin. the german press/mostly tabs thought they could make money with the Jolie Pitts.but the family is hardly seen in berlin,thats why the tabs are so pissed off and go on attack by using us tabs garbage!BUT ALL THEY REALLY REALLY WANT IS A PIECE OF ANGELINA!

No matter what, I LOVE ANGELINA JOLIE.

Nice family vid – from 07

Angelina Brad & Family – First Day Of My Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZqMLQ0NHKI&feature=related

see the movie Changeling

see the movie Changeling

see the movie Changeling

HA! NY Times is funny and People magazine is funny.

It’s great that Angelina rather devote her celebrity status with her charity work than what she does at home and her love life… She is not shallow like some of these celebritie who talk about their high life…

If she doesn’t bring awareness to people, who will? Not much people know about any of the great work she’s done around the world. Without her going out and spreading the word, no one else would know. Some don’t give a crap because they may be too poor to help or just stupid. And some have been helping out and donating to her and Brad’s charity.

If you have the power to reach millions, why not reach them to learn about your favorite charity instead of “Oh, I’m so gorgeous! I’m the best thing in the world! My family is so great! Brad’s the love of my life! He’s my soul mate! Come to my home and see what a rich life I live! Who cares abbut giving money away to charity? I rather keep that and go on vacations and lay out in the sun and get my tan on! I can’t wait to throw a big party for myself!! And go out drinking and dancing all night!”

Taylor-

Why are you BARKING?

Taylor @ 11/22/2008 at 10:10 pm –

Okey dokey—soooo please explain to us why are you here on a thread burried at JJ’s at 10:30 pm on a Sayurday night …a thread of people YOU HATE???? Oyyy…honey you need HELP ASAP!!!! ROTFLMAO :lol: :lol:

to um#42 Actually your talking about your lovely Jennifer Aniston . Angelina don’t need collagen on her lips she doesn’t need it.Jen needs it alot.

# 393 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:38 am Good Morning JP fans

I hope everyone is having a great Saturday.

Please check out this great interactive site where Angie reads excerpts from her Congo journal.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/congojournal/
___________

Good to see you, anoble! What a fabulous link–where do you come up with these?

Vee @ 11/22/2008 at 10:18 pm

# 393 anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 10:38 am Good Morning JP fans

I hope everyone is having a great Saturday.

Please check out this great interactive site where Angie reads excerpts from her Congo journal.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/congojournal/
___________

Good to see you, anoble! What a fabulous link–where do you come up with these?
———————————————————————————-
Great to see you too – a friend shared that with me, isn’t it great. Here’s another one.
http://www.elros.altervista.org/

Just watched ET for a brief moment. I haven’t watched them in dog years. They also had a segment with a time line of the “Breakup” and the Meeting. They of course lied. They said Brad told Diane S that he wanted little hers with x. That’s a lie. They also twisted other facts about the getting together. I am angry at myself for watching this c*rap. So far Showbiz Tonight has been the most honest.

Tom Cruise didn’t spend his anniversary with his wife. He was in LA, she in NY and there was no fuss. Damn, Brad can’t even go to the men’s room without breakup rumors circulating are the world. Peace

ANGELINA JOLIE BRAD PITT LOVELY FAMILY
http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/85817

The board is very slow , where is everyone??? peace :)

Awardsdaily have review on Benjamin Button. http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=4163

llm @ 11/22/2008 at 11:11 pm

The board is very slow , where is everyone??? peace :)
——————————————————————————–
Hey llm, I read on jjb that all of your videos are gone! Will you be reposting them? Please

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour: Angelina Jolie’s “Amazing”
Saturday November 22, 2008

Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images; Jason Merritt/FilmMagic
Buzz up!Jennifer Aniston isn’t a fan of Angelina Jolie, but Christiane Amanpour sure is.

“Angelina does an amazing job in terms of her capacity to highlight issues and problems around the world and with her humanitarian and human rights work,” Amanpour, who is the Chief International Correspondent for CNN, told Usmagazine.com at the Justice & Human Rights Bridge Dedication Gala on Wednesday in NYC. She said she has no plans to interview the celeb.

Jolie recently visited Afghanistan as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Refugee Agency where she met with refugees who had recently returned to their homes.

In September, Jolie and Brad Pitt gave $2 million to fund a children’s health clinic in Ethiopia, where their 3-year-old daughter Zahara was born.

very nicely done video

Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt – Music Video – “Mi Morena”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJAyClGjCs

showers of Blessings @ 11/22/2008 at 11:46 pm

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

God Bless the Jolie-Pitts

Oh look, Cate gets personal and talks about her sexy nightime activities with her hubby too…..let’s see how many complain about HER doing it:

Cate Blanchett says “spooning” in bed is the secret to a happy marriage.

The Oscar-winning actress, who has three sons with husband Andrew Upton, told Oprah Winfrey: “Someone once said to me, and I think it’s quite true, that if your bodies actually fit together when you’re sleeping in bed — I’m not going to get into too much detail — you’re in good stead.

“When you can spoon with someone, then you’re OK. Because you might not vote the same way, you might not have the same politics, but sometimes that works for people.”

Blanchett and playwright husband Andrew Upton have three sons: Dashiell, 6, Roman, 3, and Ignatius, who was born in April.

The Academy Award-winning actress appeared with Harrison Ford in the movie “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” which was a summer hit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456429,00.html

off topic: for Momoji/slb
Still having lots of trouble posting so will try to do it in parts.

Part 1

I tried to respond to your previous posts before the Nov 4 elections but had a lot of difficulty posting on JJ’s at that time and a lot of what I posted ended up in moderation hell. So may be that’s why you might have misunderstood me (or perhaps it is I who have misunderstood you).

First:
I do not recall criticizing the bail out of Freddie and Fannie or AIG although, that may have been how it sounded thanks to parts of what I wrote being placed in moderation hell.
So let me say it clearly now, I supported the nationalization of Freddie, Fannie and AIG then and continue to believe the Bush administration did the right thing.
As I understand it, there are 2 main reasons why George Bush HAD TO BAIL OUT Fannie, Freddie and AIG.
(1) It is well known in the international markets regard Freddie’s and Fannie’s bonds as being implicitly guaranteed by the US government. It is for this reason that Freddie and Fannie have been able to issue bonds at lower interest rates then the usual market. Had the Bush administration allowed Freddie and Fannie to fail, then ONE of the consequences would have been whether the US government would honor its guarantees for other bonds it had issued. If people didn’t believe the US government would stand behind its guarantee, people, including the foreigners could (a) dump the bonds, or (b) insist on a higher rate of interest to buy US government bonds.

As the US national debt is in excess of more than 60% of the American GDP, much of that debt being funded by foreign buying of US Treasury bonds, I don’t think Bush had any choice but to step in and rescue Freddie and Fannie and make sure that the bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie are safe.

Off topic: for momoji/slb

Reposting Part 2 (with minor variations because the first post did not come through)

(2) in the case of AIG, I understand that AIG guaranteed the counter party risks in many of CDOs and Over the Counter Transactions, including hedges and CDOs etc. So, if AIG went belly up, then innocent parties whose counter parties have gone belly up in these transactions will also not be paid as they should have been. Due to the size of AIG, I was told its failure could have caused systemic collapse of the financial system.

The point I WAS trying to make about the bail out of Freddie, Fannie and AIG, was to refute the charge that Obama (or democrats in general) was a socialist which is what one of the posters had called him. I merely wanted to point out that the Fed and the Treasury under the George W Bush non socialist government had effectively nationalized these 3 companies. The point therefore was:

“What does being a socialist or capitalist mean if George W Bush could ask for the nationalization of these 3 entities???”

I wanted to make the point that the whole socialism vs capitalism is very 1980s. From what I have witnessed in India and China, ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM is what drives these governments rather then pure ideology. Hence, as Deng Hsiao Peng famously said (and was accused of being a capitalist for doing so)

“Black cat, white cat, what do I care as long as it catches mice??”

So, in China, increasingly we see where markets work, then the government will try to let markets work and introduce laws which help market do what markets do best – create wealth. These laws being introduced include, for example, longer term “right of use” of property, something quite anathema to a communist party!!
I hope it is now clearer that I actually support the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie and AIG at the time it occurred and regard it as ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM.

ugghhh, the mystery of the disappearing posts

awww- thanks screamingangie… re changeling ….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T63Q7MfCS2c

anoble @ 11/22/2008 at 11:22 pm

Just back home from work, yes, all gone, but I will be back for sure.

Thanks for all the video you posted.

CLINIQUA

That is the same **** from back in the summer word for word from the first time they ever had dinner with Clint and his wife. LOL

Good Nite all, I am watching Brad on Oprah again.

guest @ 11/23/2008 at 12:56 am —soo this wonderful loving couple bothers you ehhh??? OK..honey in your face :lol: :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCe4W50iP0

Off topic: Momoji/SLB

Part 2 – again

(2) in the case of AIG, I understand that AIG guaranteed the counter party risks in many of CDOs and Over the Counter Transactions, including hedges and CDOs etc. So, if AIG went belly up, then innocent parties whose counter parties have gone belly up in these transactions will also not be paid as they should have been. Due to the size of AIG, I was told its failure could have caused systemic collapse of the financial system.

The point I WAS trying to make about the bail out of Freddie, Fannie and AIG, was to refute the charge that Obama (or democrats in general) was a socialist which is what one of the posters had called him. I merely wanted to point out that the Fed and the Treasury under the George W Bush non socialist government had effectively nationalized these 3 companies. The point therefore was:

“What does being a socialist or capitalist mean if George W Bush could ask for the nationalization of these 3 entities???”

I wanted to make the point that the whole socialism vs capitalism is very 1980s. From what I have witnessed in India and China, ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM is what drives these governments rather then pure ideology. Hence, as Deng Hsiao Peng famously said (and was accused of being a capitalist for doing so)

“Black cat, white cat, what do I care as long as it catches mice??”

So, in China, increasingly we see where markets work, then the government will try to let markets work and introduce laws which help market do what markets do best – create wealth. These laws being introduced include, for example, longer term “right of use” of property, something quite anathema to a communist party!!

I hope it is now clearer that I actually support the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie and AIG at the time it occurred and regard it as ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM.

Hey guli!! I love that!! Thanks!

Did you see this extended ET vid on youtube of the ‘weapons’ training??!!…OMG, it’s longer than what we had seen before!!…Remember before we just saw that one that quick edited clip version of Brad snaking his arm around angie’s neck in that hug, and then they cut away…

…well THIS version, shows just how long he holds it there!! yum. Brad is the one who has the crush at this point…it’s obvious…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSElI1Ulu5M&feature=related

Hi Clini—aww it’s been so long since I saw that one…I love it!!!!! Thank you!!!
Bradley was a goner… Hey… you know this January it will be FIVE years since they met….FIVE years..since they met for the first time on MAMS set… JMHO….They really became great friends at first….Let’s face it the twit after GG 2003 forgetting to thank him…he left in a few weeks to make Troy and the twit only visited him ONCE in 6 months…. Soooo JMHO….he was so lonely and found and met gorgeous Angie in Jan 20004…but the twit never visited him on the set of MAMS. either ..What a MORON! …Ohhhhhh…I just love this video…many thanks :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSElI1Ulu5M&feature=related

Clini–this is a longer verion of the France restaurant video by the papz..
Yo guest @ 11/23/2008 at 12:56 am —since it bothers you so much you might want to watch this one too :lol: :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCe4W50iP0&feature=related

guli @ 11/23/2008 at 1:04 am
guest @ 11/23/2008 at 12:56 am —soo this wonderful loving couple bothers you ehhh???
===============

The haters are more obsessed about Brad and Angelina than the fans are. Hehehehehe.

JJ is acting up today, at least for me.

# 518 an oldie @ 11/23/2008 at 2:02 am —yeahh JJ has been acting up for me too.. Hopefully it will be a better day tomorrow :-)

‘Benjamin Button’: A screening snafu

Nov 21, 2008, 03:19 PM | by Dave Karger

Categories: Best Picture

I learned over at Kris Tapley’s InContention blog that last night’s L.A. screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had to be halted and canceled after 30 minutes due to a projection problem. That’s certainly not the best first impression for such an eagerly awaited film, and I can only imagine the heart attacks the Paramount people were having at the time. But having seen Button two weeks ago in New York (a city that clearly boasts better A/V equipment), I can say that they don’t need to worry. Button is an Oscar movie with a capital O, with jaw-dropping production values, a soaring romance, and terrific performances, particularly from supporting-actress candidate Taraji P. Henson as Benjamin’s de facto mother. Even if Brad Pitt doesn’t make it into the tough Best Actor race (the likes of Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio may squeeze him out), I still can see Button racking up as many as 11 nominations, which could very well be the highest tally for any film this year. Once the film opens on Christmas day, I guarantee we’ll all be talking about one thing: whether or not Benjamin Button made you sob.

guli @ 11/23/2008 at 1:41 am Hi Clini—aww it’s been so long since I saw that one…I love it!!!!! Thank you!!!
Bradley was a goner… Hey… you know this January it will be FIVE years since they met….FIVE years..since they met for the first time on MAMS set… JMHO….They really became great friends at first….Let’s face it the twit after GG 2003 forgetting to thank him…he left in a few weeks to make Troy and the twit only visited him ONCE in 6 months…. Soooo JMHO….he was so lonely and found and met gorgeous Angie in Jan 20004…but the twit never visited him on the set of MAMS. either ..What a MORON! …Ohhhhhh…I just love this video…many thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSElI1Ulu5M&feature=related

_____________________

guli, i just happened to catch that Golden globes that year…and though I wasn’t really following Brad (his personal life with the TV sit-com hack bored me to tears, and i just thought he was slumming frankly – his mystique offscreen was nonexistent…though I still loved his movies…i was not the fan I am now) — but anyway…when I saw her get up there and not say a damn word, then saw that camera keep panning back…it was PAINFUL…then to top it off, what she said offstage, the way she sounded like his frat brother…‘to Brad Pitt, thanks for keepin’ me together man….’. Ugh..it was horrifying. ..Brad had to be mortified after being dragged to the TV section year after year, sitting back there in the kitchen and watching her lose to Patricia Heaton or Sarah Jessica Parker over and over, supporting her nonetheless – and then how does she repay him?? Ugh. Terrible. Just thinking about it now, makes me cringe. I can’t watch it to this day.

I felt so bad for him, I bet the entire room did. That’s why she tried to make up for it on SNL a month or so later – but even she had to know it was too late.

I said right there and then watching the Globes that year – that I’d give it (their relationship/marriage) another year (not knowing anything about their marriage, and not ever reading anything about their marriage or even being interested – because they bored me to tears..i found them not exciting in the least)…I just knew enough about Brad Pitt, that I knew he wouldn’t recover from being so humiliated.

It wasn’t about his being hurt because he was sooo in love with her – no way (as you all know, I’ve always thought she was rebound, and theirs was not a passionate ‘in love’ kinda relationship), but this was more about RESPECT and CONSIDERATION – and being MINDFUL of him, and THINKING ABOUT HIM and the way in which he had supported her all those years (be it these HW events or Plan B) — she proved she had no consideration, and no respect that night. Brad was gone as soon as it happened. I knew they were toast.

I figured Brad was too grown-up to end it right away, and make it seem as if THAT was the reason why…but his statements later on in their marriage, told the tale – you could see, he was detached, and disassociated from her..the merger business, the pact business, the not meant to go the distance business….in his head he was gone already that night, and over the next year, that came out in his verbal responses…

…in the past he always seemed to be mindful of her, and he overcompensated for maybe having hooked up with her ‘rebound,’ after Fishyth, by always saying glowing things about her – but it seemed post GG’s in 2003, he was one cool customer…

…and over time (the next year), including the Troy shoot – that just solidified it…he had reconciled that they were done, were toast and were not ever meant to go the distance – and I think he was happy to be starting over, wished her well, and was really hoping they’d end as friends —

….then finally on the MAMS set, just about 1 year later as I predicted, he was over-ripe and ready to fall in love with little Miss Angie, and fall he did.

For Brad, the kind of man he is – I think having a woman like Angelina, talk about him as she does, so adoringly — Brad has no need to wait for Angie to get up on a stage and say anything – she says it every day…..he has to feel like the most loved King of the entire world.

They’re simply perfect for each other.

Anyway, enough of my rant…these clips got me going. I think i’m going to watch MAMS unrated, and the second disc which i love which shows behind the scenes B&A stuff.

talk to ya later guli!

‘Button’ drops (UPDATED with audio)
Posted by Kristopher Tapley · 3:04 pm · November 22nd, 2008
Alright, now that I’m home and away from the shuffle, I can unfold some further thoughts on this. Judging by the mood of the room — mostly guild members and industry types, a lot of press folks have decided on the 6:00 screening — the verdict is a big thumbs up. Lots of positive thoughts dished about all around.

I spoke briefly with Kathleen Kennedy, who has seen this project go up and down, back and forth for 18 years. We talked about the visual effects in the film and how refreshing it is that this innovative work came within such a cerebral and affecting story. “Jurassic Park” (which she also produced) has held the industry effects crown for 15 years, and now, a new leap forward. Though director David Fincher has said from the start that he and his crew weren’t particularly sure whether they could pull it off, Kennedy took solace in her filmmaker’s professionalism.

“When you bring in a director like Steven [Spielberg] or David [Fincher], you trust their instincts when it comes to that stuff,” she said. “They come along with this giant tool box and they know which tool to use for this or that.”

I also chatted with Eric Roth for a good while, screenwriter-to-screenwriter type stuff. He really did work wonders with this story, and picking his brain for the reasons behind this decision or that can be a lot of fun. One of the odd reactions I took away from the film, however, was that the work felt strangely cold. I wasn’t sure whether I meant that in a good way or a bad way, and surely, people were crying their eyes out over this thing, so I might be in a minority. Perhaps it’s my youthful cynicism, who knows, but I thought Fincher brought an arm’s length approach to the emotions in the film and I wanted Roth’s reaction to that.

Of course, Roth doesn’t particularly agree with my take. Indeed, he was right in the middle of telling me how the bathroom was filled with sobbers after the screening when a beautiful young lady walked up to us and told him how much the movie had affected her. But he took my comment in stride.

“Fincher is the kind of director that brings you right up to the point of sentiment and then brings it back,” he said. “There’s something to be said for that I think.”

(More, plus audio of tonight’s Q&A, after the jump.)

I don’t want to dig too much into my own feelings on the film yet, which are quite complicated at the moment. I didn’t fall in love like so many in the crowd did. However, I couldn’t help but sense the innovation on display, not just below the line, but in the way we tell stories. This is a brilliant yarn, probably Roth’s finest screenplay to date, in a career that has seen some fine work.

Awards wise, as I said below, I think there is no argument against Cate Blanchett being nominated for Best Actress, and again, I think she takes this award in a cake walk. There is no actress in that category standing up and demanding this award like her work is here. Nominations for Picture, Director, Actress, Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup, Original Score and Visual Effects are virtually assured. That’s 10 you can take to the bank.

Meanwhile, Jacqueline West’s costumes are certainly good enough (and varied enough) to demand a spot, while Taraji P. Henson really is the heart of the piece in many ways and could find herself in the running for Best Supporting Actress — no news there. And the sound design, from interesting voice manipulation to a riveting wartime sequence, could easily slip in.

So if you’re keeping count, that’s 13. Brad Pitt does not blow the role of Benjamin Button out of the water and perhaps he underplays it a bit too much. But it is great to see him happy to get out from underneath his star persona, and with the right level of support, he could make it 14. We’re talking the year’s tech giant here.

I’m including the audio of today’s Q&A (with Fincher, Roth and the tech crew), moderated by The Envelope’s Pete Hammond, for your listening pleasure. I don’t believe anything realy spoilery pops up throughout the 40 minutes or so. I made sure to keep my ears open for that kind of thing, but the questions remained safely general in that way. But those wanting to know absolutely nothing will probably want to shy away.

No new news yet about the Jolie-Pitt’s. BBL.God bless them. Flurries in our neck of the woods today.
waving to all the good ladies at JJ.

PITT is an AFTERTHOUGHT for AJ. She ONLY mentions HIM as FATHER of HER KIDS. It is from Scotland newspaper whice their reporter was present at UK’s press Conference.

Jolie brings every topic we discuss back to her children. On visiting the set of Pitt’s upcoming film, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious ********: “We keep trying to figure out the perfect day to bring the kids, but what’s a good day for children on a Tarantino set?” On the pressure of constantly being under the media spotlight: “When you’re pregnant and people are talking about it, I was like every mum, just wanting my babies to be healthy. It’s an odd thing, and something you don’t like.” Pitt, it’s worth noting, is mentioned less, and when Jolie does talk about him it’s as the father of her children.!!!!! :roll:

Of course, this could just be another phase. Let’s not forget Jolie’s wild Hollywood past. She has periodically fallen out with her father, the actor Jon Voight, and in 2002 legally dropped his surname. Voight left home before Jolie was one, and has in the past spoken out publicly about her “mental problems”. It doesn’t take a Hollywood shrink to see why creating her own family, with a very present father, has become such a focus. Jolie has always credited her mother (actress Marcheline Bertrand, who died at the age of 58 from ovarian cancer) as her acting influence and the reason why, at the precocious age of 13, she went to the Lee Strasberg Institute, where De Niro and Pacino also studied acting. Then there was the early interest in knives, drugs, blood, Billy Bob Thornton. Now, Jolie might seem to have moved on from her punk rebel past and become a fully paid-up member of Hollywood society, but perhaps her eccentricity is to be found elsewhere – in her almost compulsive desire to have more children (she has six so far), live out of a suitcase, fly her own plane or talk about the plight of refugees when people are more interested in what she eats for breakfast.

Changeling is released on Friday http://www.changelingmovie.net

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com

QQ @ 11/23/2008 at 5:18 am

———————————–
ah today she doesn’t love Brad yesterday was she only talks about Brad.Angelina not loving Brad?really.lol

NEW YORK POST @ 11/23/2008 at 5:48 am

This article is spot on -LETS HOPE SHE READS THIS-

JENNIFER NEEDS TO PLAY BY ‘THE RULES’

THE authors of “The Rules” have come up with a new list of them for Jennifer Aniston, who they say is still heart broken over losing Brad Pitt to Angelina Jolie and needs to move on from John Mayer – pronto. “Breaking up is never easy, but it doesn’t have to be hu miliating,” Ellen Fein, who wrote the chick bible with Sherrie Schneider, told Page Six. Their tips for Aniston: “Never mention Brad’s or John May er’s name in public. Also, don’t say any thing bad about him (“he’s missing a sensi tivity chip”). Never talk about Angelina or call her “uncool,” even if she was uncool. She does not exist in your world. Never date a man or take a man back who humiliated you publicly or held a press conference to explain your breakup. Go to parties where there are lots of single men and ask everyone you know to set you up. You’re going to be 40 soon. You have no time to waste if you want kids.”

Yeah, she really owns her haters doesn’t she, at 6am they’re saying she doesn’t mention Brad enough – only her kids, and why, whatever could be wrong we’ve only got ten 8 Brad mentions as oppose to the usual 10….

….and then of course by lunch time same day, they’ll be whining, ‘Why can’t she shut up about how much she loves Brad, always rubbing poor Jen’s face in it! Waaaah…” LMAO

…then by dinner time that night, they’ll be dissecting all of her interviews, and saying she gives too much personal info away…

….then by the following day it’ll be…what’s wrong with Angelina she seems to be clamming up.

Hahahahaha. That’s it you dumb hater f*cks, keep doing somesaults for Angelina, and crawling up her asss hanging on for dear life, micro-examing her every twitch while swinging off her thong.

Bahahaha. Dumbasss haters. lololol

NEW YORK POST @ 11/23/2008 at 5:48 am This article is spot on -LETS HOPE SHE READS THIS-

JENNIFER NEEDS TO PLAY BY ‘THE RULES’

THE authors of “The Rules” have come up with a new list of them for Jennifer Aniston, who they say is still heart broken over losing Brad Pitt to Angelina Jolie and needs to move on from John Mayer – pronto. “Breaking up is never easy, but it doesn’t have to be hu miliating,” Ellen Fein, who wrote the chick bible with Sherrie Schneider, told Page Six. Their tips for Aniston: “Never mention Brad’s or John May er’s name in public. Also, don’t say any thing bad about him (”he’s missing a sensi tivity chip”). Never talk about Angelina or call her “uncool,” even if she was uncool. She does not exist in your world. Never date a man or take a man back who humiliated you publicly or held a press conference to explain your breakup. Go to parties where there are lots of single men and ask everyone you know to set you up. You’re going to be 40 soon. You have no time to waste if you want kids.”
______________________

ROFLMAO :lol:

Jennifer Aniston is a BIG JOKE!!!!! Plain & simple!!!

Hey guli..Thanks for all the video links. Love them.

Way to go Cliniqua! Love your post. That TV sitcom hag has to be exposed!

Aw, poor QQ…apparently she’s taken to slicing and dicing articles where she doesn’t want us to read an article in it’s entirety. She chopped the scotsman article up, the cowardly wuss. Apparently most of it bothered her. Tell us QQ…what was that you didn’t like, the part where the writer said Angelina was “better at action than Jodie Foster, edgier than Nicole Kidman, sexier than Cameron Diaz, and had more range than Julia Roberts?” Yeah, I know, I know….that’s what did it right? LOL Look, this article is from a paper that’s notoriously tabloid-y and snarky at the best of times, so I usually skip them, but I was pleasantly surprised by this piece…not that it didn’t have it’s snarky moments – but they weren’t that bad. Overall, the author states the obvious as to why we’re all fascinated with this young woman, and argues it’s pretty warranted…that’s including the hater who is up in the wee hours editing out the large parts of positive articles she doesn’t like…hahahah – get a life fool. :lol:

________________

Angelina Jolie interview – Maternal flame
Published Date: 23 November 2008
Angelina Jolie describes acting as therapy, stripping away the many sides of her personality to let one character rule. But in a candid interview with Chitra Ramaswamy, it becomes clear the fiery non-conformist will always make it to the top
THE shock in meeting Angelina Jolie is not how strikingly beautiful she is, but how close to that surface she wears her emotions. Sitting down with her, she is frank and unguarded, listening and answering thoughtfully and appearing to enjoy being interviewed. One has to wonder why she bothers. After all, we’re talking about the woman who is one half of the world’s most famous celebrity couple. Her every move, child and pound lost or gained is pounced upon, analysed and, yes, invented by salivating hacks and paparazzi. She appears on the cover of glossy magazines every week. She has been painted as a troubled goth, a marriage wrecker, an anorexic
control freak, and now the eccentric earth mother.

She bothers, I realise, because it’s a trade-off. “I was very pleased to have something of value to speak of, something positive to do with the opportunities I have to express things in the media,” she tells me. But there is more in it for Jolie than that. Celebrity, even at its most Brangelina-obsessed, has its uses and, since meeting Brad Pitt three years ago on the set of Mr And Mrs Smith, Jolie, 33, has become a master at harnessing them for her own ends, which are to have more children, travel the world, promote her humanitarian work and appear in fewer films.

It is a dangerous business, though, and fading away, as she has claimed she will in coming years, will not be easy. Jolie has made a pact with the devil and for now has it eating out of her hand, whether that means earning enough to appear in fewer films (Jolie is the second-highest-paid actress in Hollywood, bagging $14m per movie), giving a third of her salary to charity, or having the clout to sell the rights for the first images of her twins for $14m earlier this year. They were the most expensive celebrity pictures ever taken: the money went straight into the Jolie-Pitt Foundation. Arguably, Jolie has started to enjoy the influence and sense of purpose all this has given her.

She has recently returned from Kabul, and is renowned for roughing it – pregnant or not – in the same conditions as other UN field workers on such trips. She has visited more than 20 countries since becoming a UN ambassador in 2001. The worlds she inhabits are starkly contrasting; going from a war zone or a refugee camp to the glitzy London premiere of her latest film, Clint Eastwood’s Changeling, but she plays all this down. “I don’t live in either of those worlds in reality,” she says, though sitting in a suite in Claridge’s, that doesn’t quite ring true. It seems more likely that she is drawn to living between extremes, and perhaps that her humanitarian work allows her to feel more validated in other areas. “In reality I live at home with six children. I’m a mum, and that’s what I live with every day.”

Acting, in comparison, is simply her profession. “My job is to be here,” Jolie continues, holding my gaze. She is very good at unflinching eye contact. “This job allows me to do some good work and bring attention to other areas. I can sit here and talk about those areas and you can choose whether to write about them or not, and whether to put good information out there. It’s all of our jobs really.

“I feel fortunate that I travelled early on in my life and had children and was able to understand what the priorities are for us to be discussing. I don’t have any answers but I’m hopefully posing a lot of the right questions. I’m trying to learn.”

Her latest incarnation, on and off screen, is as the responsible, ultra-feminine mother. First there are the films: last year’s A Mighty Heart, in which she was the pregnant wife of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was murdered in Pakistan, and now Changeling, in which she plays a single mother whose son goes missing. Jolie, as we shall see, often signposts her life with her film roles, which is what makes her such a compelling actress. It is also what makes her decreasing interest in film seem strange, disingenuous even. Today, she certainly looks the maternal part. Gone, at least for now, is the turbo-charged, pumped-up look of Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, or the male fantasy of the trigger-happy Fox in Wanted. Instead she is petite, natural and looks more fragile than I had expected.

Jolie brings every topic we discuss back to her children. On visiting the set of Pitt’s upcoming film, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious ********: “We keep trying to figure out the perfect day to bring the kids, but what’s a good day for children on a Tarantino set?” On the pressure of constantly being under the media spotlight: “When you’re pregnant and people are talking about it, I was like every mum, just wanting my babies to be healthy. It’s an odd thing, and something you don’t like.” Pitt, it’s worth noting, is mentioned less, and when Jolie does talk about him it’s as the father of her children.

Of course, this could just be another phase. Let’s not forget Jolie’s wild Hollywood past. She has periodically fallen out with her father, the actor Jon Voight, and in 2002 legally dropped his surname. Voight left home before Jolie was one, and has in the past spoken out publicly about her “mental problems”. It doesn’t take a Hollywood shrink to see why creating her own family, with a very present father, has become such a focus. Jolie has always credited her mother (actress Marcheline Bertrand, who died at the age of 58 from ovarian cancer) as her acting influence and the reason why, at the precocious age of 13, she went to the Lee Strasberg Institute, where De Niro and Pacino also studied acting. Then there was the early interest in knives, drugs, blood, Billy Bob Thornton. Now, Jolie might seem to have moved on from her punk rebel past and become a fully paid-up member of Hollywood society, but perhaps her eccentricity is to be found elsewhere – in her almost compulsive desire to have more children (she has six so far), live out of a suitcase, fly her own plane or talk about the plight of refugees when people are more interested in what she eats for breakfast.

When we talk about the Oscar buzz surrounding her role in Eastwood’s film she is low-key. “I’m just thrilled I didn’t fail at my job,” she says. “It means I did okay, I didn’t let the team down.” Compare this with the rather sentimental portrait of family life she gives when asked about what keeps her wanting more children. “We’re just having the most fun,” she says. “I don’t know how we’ve managed to do it but there is just the right balance. Right now the boys seem to be really teaming up and everyone’s got each other. Because they’re just old enough to be very independent, they’re not jealous of the twins. We watch them play and think they’re going to be best friends in life. These little people are gooing to be there for each other when we’re long gone. It’s extraordinary.

“We came home the other day, from LA to Germany, with everyone having jet lag. We tried to get everybody to bed, but at 12am one of them woke up, at 12.30am another one woke up, and we just thought, ‘You know what? Let’s get them all up’. We all went to the kitchen, got snacks, turned on a movie and were up until four in the morning, laughing our heads off. They’re some of the funniest people we’ve ever met. We just want to hang out with them. So more sounds like a great idea.”

In Changeling, we get one of Jolie’s most harrowing roles yet. Based on the true story of a working-class woman in 1920s Los Angeles whose son went missing and was replaced with a different boy by a notoriously corrupt LAPD, it’s classic Eastwood territory: big emotions, small politics and an expansive, tear-stained, Oscar-friendly performance. And Jolie lives up to it, playing Christine Collins – whom she based on her mother – with a measured combination of stoicism and barely controlled despair.

She even believes that her emotional involvement in her role in Changeling led her to get pregnant. “I was so relieved to step away from this one,” she says. “Every time I said the word ‘son’ it was very emotional. When we started I wanted to get pregnant and I think the high emotion of thinking about children, well, I think that was partially why it happened.”

Working with Eastwood, who is famous for shooting scenes in a couple of takes, was extraordinary. “You hear that he’s quick and think, ‘Oh, he just likes to get things done’. But the fact is he’s extremely decisive. He wants to keep things fresh and it’s very clever, because when everything takes a long time, actors start thinking.”

Jolie’s breakthrough role was in Gia, in 1998, playing a damaged model who died of Aids at the age of 26. At the time, Jolie was 23 and still in her dark, outlandish phase. She once spoke about contemplating hiring a hitman to murder her, and the year before Gia she married her first husband, Jonny Lee Miller, wearing a shirt on which she had painted his name in her blood.

Reality would continue to bleed into celluloid, sometimes at a personal cost. Days after winning the best supporting actress Oscar for her turn as the wild sociopath Lisa Rowe in Girl Interrupted, Jolie briefly went into a mental institution. When her social conscience and interest in refugees was awakened while filming Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in Cambodia (the country in which she adopted her first child Maddox), Jolie went on to star in Beyond Borders, an unpalatably worthy film about a privileged woman who becomes a humanitarian overnight when she gets out into the world.

Jolie has always been very serious about her acting. She is unique among A-list actresses in her representation of female sexuality, and indeed off screen she has always been open about her bisexuality. She is tougher than Jodie Foster – the only other A-list actress who plays major action heroes – edgier than Nicole Kidman, sexier than Cameron Diaz and has a greater range than Julia Roberts. She says her more masculine roles are still just as important to her.

“The next film I’m doing has quite a bit of action,” she says, referring to a role originally written for Tom Cruise. “Someone was saying to me it’s because I was breastfeeding while I was reading the script and feeling very ‘mummy’ and thinking: ‘I need to get out there and be tough.’ I’m excited about it because we have a lot of action movies for women, but they tend to be fantastical. This is more of the original, serious CIA thriller that’s intelligent and tough. There is also that side of me, as much as there is this idea of going away from home and working on something serious. My life at home is very serious and sometimes it’s good to step away and be physical. Also, when I’m doing easier roles, it’s not so hard for the kids to be on set, (unlike] when I’m a bit of a basket case during the production. With action movies, mum’s a lot easier to be around.”

Eastwood has compared Jolie to Meryl Streep and said her talent is obscured by her beauty. The vigour of Jolie’s performances, when she is at her best, is arguably down to her emotional investment in them, the same quality that is disarming when meeting her. She has spoken of tattooing herself as a way of marking out her own body, reclaiming it from her characters’ skins, and described acting as a form of therapy in which she has 40 sides, doing away with 39 of them to get into character. It sounds like a dangerous game and I wonder how she would cope without it? She starts laughing. “I have needed it in the past, but I now have a lot of children who teach me every day. I’m learning a lot from being a mum and from my travels. I’m able to do a lot of that in my life. I need film less and I’m needed at home more. You know, I’m balanced… I’m all right now.”

I found this a VERY interesting read, an article/interview on Tilda Swinton. Tilda, with all due respect in my summarizing her life like this, is considered quite the eccentric, she is a woman, 48 years of age, living with her 60 yr old husband (a scot), and two 11 year old boys, and her 30 yr old live-in lover. It’s a simple and as complex as that. Tilda explains her life perfectly, as it’s her life to explain. What I found in such contrast after reading the Jolie piece in the same paper/site, is the absolute LACK of critical and judgemental tone in the Tilda article as compared to the Jolie piece. Tilda describes traveling the world, and going from city to city to city and country to country to countru, filming (leaving her boys at home with Dad), and her exhaustion and relief and joy when coming back home – and yet there’s absolutely no negatives associated with her life, no critical backlash to her ‘travels,’ — they aren’t made to seem impulsive, they are explained as part of her work…when Angelina travels, what’s oddly hysterical is that they ascribe to her (“living out of a suitcase”), what are usually Brad’s film shoots (New Orleans, New York, Texas, Germany, etc.)…and that gets the judgement call to. I’m sure Brad & angie find great relief in and joy and example people like Tilda, who live their lives, and are who they are – and don’t check with minivans, and US weekly to determine what they should say, or how they should act. Anyway, enjoy the great Tilda below!! :-)
______________________
Published Date: 23 November 2008
PETER ROSS discovers that sharing her life with a husband, lover and two children is probably the least complicated aspect of Tilda Swinton, the actress who has made her home in the Highlands
TILDA Swinton is standing on the beach at Nairn, the beige sand dotted with worm-casts, bladder-wrack and mussel shells the shape and colour of bruised eyes. She is wearing a fuzzy orange coat, her red hair is dyed blonde, and she is being photographed with her back to the Moray Firth. Swinton has called this Highland town home for seven years – a point of stasis in a life characterised by flux. Her film commitments mean she is always just back from a string of foreign cities, and always on the point of leaving for more. Today she is jetlagged, having not long returned from New York, Berlin, Paris and Los Angeles; she spent her 48th birthday, Bonfire Night, attending an American Film Institute tribute to her work. Two days after this interview she is off to London, Chile, Mexico and Los Angeles once more.

It is a crazy way to live, almost literally maddening. When she comes back home to her 11-year-old twins, Honor and Xavier, and their father, the painter and playwright John Byrne, “It’s like that scene in Oliver! when he wakes up in the grandfather’s house and he looks out of the window and sings, ‘Who will buy this wonderful morning?’ and all these milkmaids come past with yokes on their shoulders and brass bands strike up. It really is like that. When I get to Inverness airport, I get off the plane and I want to kiss the tarmac.”

Swinton loves Nairn, and thinks it natural that a movie star should set up home here. As we walk back to her house, she points out that Charlie Chaplin used to holiday in the town, that Margaret Rutherford stayed here while suffering from “lovesickness” and that Basil Rathbone shot one of his Sherlock Holmes adventures at the local railway station.

The way Swinton looks (serious, imperious, mysterious) can belie the way she really is (whimsical, childish in a good way, sporadically daft). It’s as if a character from the Beano suddenly fetched up in the pages of Vogue. In the kitchen we are joined for a bite to eat – it is the sort of place where there always seems to be soup or scones on the go – by Byrne, resplendent in a Harris tweed waistcoat, who is taking a break from adapting The Cherry Orchard for Edinburgh’s Royal Lyceum.

Byrne and Swinton have been in the papers a lot this year after it emerged that both were in new relationships. Yet seeing them together it is clear there is no acrimony. She mentions her new partner, the 30-year-old painter Sandro Kopp, in front of him, provoking no reaction whatsoever; it’s clearly not a difficult subject. In fact, she and Byrne, who is 68, seem rather like a comedy double act – Pale and Interesting. She speaks in a cut-glass, high-class English accent; his Paisley tones are muffled by his estimable moustache.

They tell each other silly jokes, and Swinton recalls some of their more juvenile antics. “They’re so sick of me in the butcher’s,” she says, “going in and asking if I can have a mince round.” She turns to Byrne. “Do you remember when we went into that fabric shop in Elgin and asked if you could get felt in there? I don’t think the woman knew what we were giggling about.”

I first met Tilda Swinton in the summer of 2001 when she was still living in Easter Ross. Back then she was best known for her work with the late avant-garde director Derek Jarman, but was beginning to build her profile with a series of supporting roles in American films including Vanilla Sky and Adaptation. Her ascendancy reached its zenith with her appearance as the White Witch in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe, and this year’s Oscar for Michael Clayton. Her increasing fame has been “kind of great, to be honest. I’m happy to be a movie star. The downside of being an arthouse freak is that it’s a kind of elitist sport. I really like people waving at me in airports.”

This year, though, she has been under intense scrutiny as a result of her relationship with Kopp, whom she met on the set of the Narnia film. What has that been like? She munches a cracker and considers. “Nothing has changed for us. It’s just this swarm has come over. We’ve been happily living our lives for four or five years in this configuration. Then when I won a Bafta I became interesting to a certain kind of press who couldn’t have cared less about me 24 hours earlier because I was, y’know, The Freak.”

Swinton says she takes great pleasure in the idea of openness, and would like it known that her home is “a shame-free zone”. The media stooshie around her lifestyle reminds me of the way Derek Jarman, in his candour about being gay and HIV Positive, became a tabloid bête noire.

“Well, the similarity is we don’t care,” Swinton nods. “It’s like a bunch of kids from another school laughing about you. It’s not ever going to affect us. Of course, one’s concerned about the children, but fortunately we feel that our children are immune, partly because they’ve lived with us all for almost half their lives, and so for them there is nothing remotely exotic and weird about it.”

In any case, she says, it’s all terribly simple. “There has been this idea given out that we’re in this complete debauch in this house. Well, that is a fabulous fantasy. It really is very straightforward. You’re talking about a couple having children, becoming not a couple any more but remaining the parents of children, and having other coupledoms with other people. It’s about consecutive relationships not concurrent relationships. We’re not all sleeping together, I’m sorry to tell you.” She laughs. “It’s so much more boring than that.”

Confusingly, the situation was reported widely as a ménage à trois. “But that’s because there was no announcement of a break-up. There is no break-up. There’s been an evolution over a long time which we didn’t go running to the newspapers with because, frankly, there are other things going on in the world that deserve the space. And we are private people, and these evolutions go on in every single family. We just breathed our way through it and we’ve come to feel very good about it all.” The whole idea of jealousy is completely alien to her.

What’s Sandro like? “He’s fantastic. He would be here today if he wasn’t in New York. He was born in Germany, and has a German father and New Zealandish mother. He left Germany when he was 20 and was living in New Zealand when I met him. He’s an extraordinary person. Very funny and wise and a dude.” She laughs. “He’s a sweetheart, a pretty switched-on individual, and a very interesting figurative painter.” She tells me later that Kopp’s grandfather was a leading physicist in Nazi Germany.

I mention that I had gone on to Kopp’s website and seen a painting he had made of Swinton. “He’s constantly trying to paint me,” she says. “In all the paintings I’m absolutely exhausted because he always wants to paint me when I’ve just put two children to bed. So I’m always slightly falling asleep and looking like that in his paintings.”

Does he stay here? “He comes and goes. We have this strange existence. He and I live together when I’m on the road, but I’m on the road quite a bit. We don’t have a place together, but we do have a variety of cities that we end up in pretty regularly. We have a way of living in New York, LA, Paris, Berlin, Rome and Milan. Our way of living that has various ingredients in it, including a fantastic card game called Shithead which we play pretty much all the time. If we are sitting in a hotel or by an airport gate, we crack open the cards and play Shithead. That’s our equivalent of a fireside.”

Earlier, I had asked how she maintained a sense of calm and continuity while jetting around the world. Now, with reference to Kopp, she returns to this subject. “I met Sandro four years ago, and there was a point three years before that when John, very sweetly, said to me, ‘I’m not coming on the road any more. I can’t do it.’ Because he’d noticed, poor thing, that he never got any work done when he was with me. So we agreed that I would go by myself, either with the children or without them. And God it was lonely. It really was. So it was an amazing stroke of luck to meet this fellow traveller.”

We move through to the drawing room. It’s a fairly large but cosy space decorated with paintings by Byrne and others, including his portrait of the writer AL Kennedy who recently came to visit with her collection of Doctor Who DVDs. There’s a piano on which Xavier can play ‘Stairway To Heaven’, and an open fire on which Swinton deposits the first bag of peat of the year. She walks over to the iPod and chooses music. Patti Smith starts singing “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine” but then Swinton changes her mind and switches to Kate Bush. She sits on a flowery sofa, legs outstretched, balances my voice recorder on her stomach so Rosie the springer spaniel doesn’t disturb it, and continues to talk.

A lot of our discussion both today and when I last came to Nairn two months ago is taken up with her upbringing. Despite that accent, which she describes as “something out of the bloody 1930s BBC”, Swinton is Scottish. Her land-owning family can trace their roots back to the 9th century. The estate is Kimmerghame in Berwickshire, and Swinton grew up in the big house there, on and off. Her father, Major-General Sir John Swinton, inherited when his father died in 1972.

They are a military family. Tilda’s younger brother William has commanded the Scots Guards, as his father and grandfather did before him. As the daughter of a soldier, she moved around a lot during her early years, living on military bases in Germany and at Sandhurst military academy. She remembers being about three and standing on the parade ground at Sandhurst and feeling very safe. She thinks, looking back, that she understood that it was a kind of ritual space, a place where people performed, and believes this was a very early flash of how she would later feel in front of the camera – at peace and in control.

Another key moment in her development as an actor – not that she likes that word – came when she was 10 years old and sent from Scotland to West Heath boarding school in Kent. She was on the train, feeling absolutely miserable, and she suddenly realised – with pleasure – that no one else in the carriage could possibly know how she felt inside. There was a gap between what was in her heart and what was on her face. That moment was the first realisation that being a cinema performer was something she could do. That was interesting because it was also the first time that she had a sense of how she could carve out a life of her own. She had three brothers and always felt rather overlooked.

“It was very clear,” she says, “that the boys in the family had a life laid out for them that was pretty well worn, set up, established and honoured. It involved all sorts of ritualistic things like learning to shoot and all going to the same school as their father, grandfather and great-grandfather. It felt like it would have been more convenient for me to be a boy, and it did definitely look like they were having more fun.”

Swinton felt marginalised because of her gender, and misunderstood because she felt early on that she was some kind of artist, but “most of the things I was interested in were anathema to my family. They are singularly philistine when it comes to art.”

Then there was the way she looked. She has always been striking, but it’s a look that is perhaps more appreciated in a film star and fashion muse than in a little girl. I ask when she first become aware that she had something about her appearance that set her apart from other people.

“Well, I was always aware that I wasn’t pretty,” she says, “which I think is a great advantage. I don’t think it’s something to be wished on your child – that they be pretty – because it’s an easy currency that can get spent too quickly. Friends of mine who were pretty, who had a regularness about them, got caught up in all sorts of trafficking of their own prettiness. Even pre-sexual, there would be this knowledge that they were blonde, blue-eyed, bow-lipped and that was expected of them. It was a pressure. And I was aware that I didn’t have that, and so I was under wraps and I didn’t really qualify as a girl for that reason.

“I never really felt girly. I was brought up in a very male-orientated family, by a very feminine mother, but I didn’t have much access to her. Maybe if I hadn’t gone to boarding school, if I had been in the same house as her when I was between 10 and 17 then I might have had more access to girliness via her. But I didn’t. And so I just opted out of any sexuality and found that a really safe, really strong place to be.”

There was no sense of missing out? “No. The only thing that I still have no sense of humour about is that at boarding school – and I forgive my upbringing everything but this – we were not allowed any music. I think that’s a gross abuse of a young person, particularly a teenager during the Punk era. I suppose it was some clever way of keeping us away from sex or something, but it really sucked.”

She is still very proud that, even though she had no way of playing it, she managed to acquire a copy of David Bowie’s Aladdin Sane. She bought it for the front cover, having noticed a resemblance between them. “Yeah, I always looked like him,” she says. “And the fact that he not only looked physically like me specifically, but was also of indeterminate gender was really striking, and it felt like good company.”

Has she ever met him? “Do you know, the awful thing is that I stood behind him in New York a month ago. We were both at an event. And I was virtually dressed up as him as well. My look that night was completely Ziggy. And I just couldn’t speak to him. I’m very shy about Bowie.”

She was less shy around pop stars on the night of the Oscars in February when she won an Academy Award as best supporting actress for her work in Michael Clayton. The ceremony itself is a blur. She was chatting to George Clooney and the Coen Brothers and the next thing her name was read out, “and I just remember this feeling of horror and I can’t remember much after that”. Afterwards, she went to a party at Prince’s house and she introduced herself to Stevie Wonder and danced when he played “Superstition.”

It’s time to pick up the children. Rosie and I climb in the front passenger seat of Swinton’s Fiat, CDs by Love and Nick Cave spilling from the glove compartment. “Welcome to the Wicker Man!” says Swinton when we pull up outside the school, which is set in the woods.

Honor and Xavier are playing on tree swings, but she tempts them into the car with the promise of ginger cakes, and we drive back to Nairn, talking about Honor’s pet hare, Gentle. It’s obvious that Swinton has an incredibly close relationship with her children and that they enjoy each other’s company. Aware that children often rebel against the lifestyle of their parents, she jokes that hers might grow up to be “Nazi accountants”.

Back in the house, Johnny Cash on the iPod, I ask about Jarman. Swinton has never been at ease with her background as one of the “owning classes”, and spent a good number of years seeking a way of life and work that had nothing to do with elitism and inheritance. After school, she spent a year volunteering in a children’s home in a black township in South Africa. She then studied social and political science and English literature at Cambridge University. On graduation she worked rather half-heartedly as a stage actress, including a “boring” period with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Then in 1985 she met Jarman and became part of his misfit troupe. They made a lot of work together, beginning with Caravaggio, her first film if you don’t count the vampire movie she shot in Cambridge, in 1986.

It was significant for Swinton that she and Jarman had similar backgrounds in posh military families. It taught her that you could come from that and still “go through the looking-glass” to become an artist. Was he, then, a father figure?

“A godfather figure,” she replies. “He wasn’t remotely fatherly, but he was a mentor of sorts, and very protective of me. If I had never met Derek Jarman I don’t see how I could have been a performer. I was not interested in the theatre, and when I was first making films there was nothing. There was Richard Attenborough and Merchant-Ivory and Alan Parker.” She pronounces these names with obvious distaste.

“I was interested in some kind of art experiment, and Derek was heaven-sent because he gave me this laboratory to kick around in. By the time I’d finished working with him, I was this strange kind of underground film star. Which,” she laughs, “I never had any illusions about since my friend Henry Rosenthal said, “Remember Tilda, being called an underground film star is like being called a jumbo shrimp?”

Jarman died in 1994 from an Aids-related illness. Swinton went to 45 funerals that year. Partly in response to losing Jarman and so many friends she created The Maybe – an art project at the Serpentine Gallery in London in which she spent one week, eight hours each day, lying motionless in a glass box, on public view.

She was living in London with John Byrne at the time. They had met in 1985 when he designed a play in which she was appearing, and they became a couple in 1989 after he cast her in his television series Your Cheatin’ Heart. She felt right away that he was kin to her, and that feeling has not changed. He’s also made her life a lot funnier than it was.

“What else?” she ponders. “He means for me a certain Scottishness. It was really meaningful for me to come home to Scotland with him. I never felt right about England, and yet I still didn’t feel like I could be in Scotland by myself because people would assume I was English. So coming together with John and coming to live in Scotland when we had our children was a really happy thing, and I’m still really grateful for it.”

There is a good chance that one day, not too far in the future, Swinton may stop making films altogether. “That’s really what I would like the most.” She’ll probably move to the island of Colonsay, which has been her home from home since childhood, and start anew as a writer. In the meantime, though, after her lengthy “American infiltration period”, she is about to enter a new era in which she has a greater sense of authorship of the films she makes. These include making I Am Love with the Italian director Luca Guadagnini; We Need To Talk About Kevin is likely to begin shooting in the spring, directed by the Scottish filmmaker Lynne Ramsay.

Before that, though, there is Julia, directed by Erick Zonka, in which Swinton plays an alcoholic who kidnaps the nine-year-old grandson of a millionaire. Her performance is phenomenal, a car crash made flesh, and I watched most of the film from between my fingers.

Swinton wanted to make Julia because she liked Zonka and because she considers the way alcoholism is usually portrayed in films to be quite false. “The largest proportion of really interesting, energetic, driven, fantasy-filled, vivacious people I’ve ever known have been alcoholics,” she says. “Yet we are constantly being given this idea that they are kind of hopeless. I think it’s being hopeful that might lead one toward being an alcoholic actually. My sense is that alcoholics tend to be so inspired somewhere that they are disappointed by life and have to dull the pain of that disappointment.”

She herself is not an alcoholic. She can’t drink much at all without getting sleepy or sick. What about drugs? “No, I’m hopeless with drugs. I’ve always hung out with stoners but I’m a hopeless stoner myself.” The one time she took Ecstasy, in New York during the mid-1980s, she sat quietly in a corner for three or four days. “It was very interesting and insightful but not what I had bargained for.” It reminded her that she was not naturally noisy. She had been bullied at boarding school by girls who thought her odd because she was so quiet, and ever since she had been forcing herself to act in an extroverted way. “It sounds weird saying this given that the whole premise of our conversation is that I blab on, but I am actually happier being quiet.”

It’s very hard to get a handle on Swinton. Is she extroverted or shy? Content or restless? Happy or sad? She’s certainly complicated. Having spent several hours in her company, it’s only now becoming clear just how much more time would be needed to reach any hard conclusions. Interviewing her is like exploring a vast oil field; no matter how deep you drill, there seems no end to the dark, rich stuff seeping up.

Right near the start of our time together she said, “I never expected to be understood”, and as she drops me off at Nairn station, I can’t help but feel like one of the people in that train carriage with her all those years ago – unable to fathom what’s really going on behind Tilda Swinton’s inscrutable, indelible, iconic face.

• Julia is released on December 5

Cliniqua#525. ITA. God bless the Jolie-Pitt’s.

To: oprah(credit:lana) 11/16/2008 at 7:20 pm (1033)

I read your letter to oprah. I’m not able to understood some points but, for the most I understood, was good, very good.

Thanks for all the videos.

Can’t wait to see CCOBB

Everything X does is in reaction to B&A getting together so those rules won’t work for her.

Oh it snowed in Berlin. I hope the little ones got to play in the snow.

I hope everyone has a great day.

http://www.people.co.uk/showbiz/atthemovies/tm_headline=jolie-gripping&method=full&objectid=20917125&siteid=93463-name_page.html
Changeling Opening in the UK.

23 November 2008
JOLIE GRIPPING
Angelina shines as battling mother in Clint classic
Conor Nolan
Changeling is Clint Eastwood’s latest movie as a director – and it’s nothing short of a masterpiece.

His star is Angelina Jolie, playing a single mother in Los Angeles in 1928 who reports her young son missing to the police.

Like any parent she is frantic with worry until the cops inform her they have finally found her son, safe and sound.

Only problem is she believes the child is not her son and she wages a one-woman war against what she believes is a blatant cover-up by the Los Angeles Police Department.

This results in her being put into a mental hospital.

However, helped by the Reverend Briegleb (John Malkovich), she continues to pursue the corruption at the very heart of the LAPD.

What unfolds is a multi-layered story of child abduction, a serial killer and one mother’s quest to find the truth.

All of this is against a backdrop of Prohibition America where women are meant to be seen and not heard. The movie features multiple plot strands that run concurrently throughout and not once do you lose interest or start looking at your watch.

I had the rare privilege of working on one of Eastwood’s movies (Space Cowboys) and have always held him in high regard.

But with Changeling the veteran film-maker really is on top of his game.

This is proper storytelling. if you liked Clint’s Oscar-winning film Million Dollar Baby, then I truly urge you to see this utterly gripping and compelling adult drama too.

But don’t take my word for it. Eastwood himself says: “It’s made for people who want to think along with you. People who don’t want to think along with you – well, they should go see something else!”

In other words, an intelligent, challenging and provocative film that stays with you long after the end credits.

Changeling is based on a true story and Angelina Jolie is outstanding as the tormented mum Christine Collins. She is a racing cert for an Oscar nomination.

As a mother herself Jolie knew it would be a very difficult role and originally turned it down.

She said: “When I first read the script, I couldn’t put it down and then I said no immediately.

“But then I could not stop talking about this extraordinary woman and I really wanted people to know about her.”

Go and see Changeling. You won’t regret it.

CHANGELING

WORTH WATCHING?

Just don’t miss this

RATING: ****

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/features/2008/11/23/jolie-has-the-mother-of-all-roles-91466-22313514/

Jolie has the mother of all roles
Nov 23 2008 Wales On Sunday

ANGELINA Jolie is one of the most distinguished actresses of her generation. She embodies the grace and beauty of the old-style Hollywood belles as well as being an earth mother to her six children and devoted partner of actor Brad Pitt.

The 33-year-old seems to play each role with deft aplomb, ensuring what is private remains private, but giving her all to each character she plays.

She becomes so embroiled in each performance in fact, that when she first read the script for her latest role, as single mother Christine Collins in Changeling, she turned it down.

“When I read the script, I could not put it down and then I said no – immediately. I did not want to go near this project because it was too upsetting. But then I couldn’t stop talking about her,” Angelina explains.

“I found myself sitting with people and wanting them to know about this extraordinary woman, that you wouldn’t believe what happened to her and what these people did to her.”

Changeling, the latest work from Clint Eastwood, tells the story of Christine, whose son Walter disappears in 1928 Los Angeles.

Five months later, a child who claims to be her son is returned by police who are keen to win credit for a job well done. Dazzled by flashbulbs and overwhelmed by reporters, Christine agrees to take the boy home, even though she knows it is not her son.

Her campaign to find the real Walter continues but, in Prohibition-era LA, women don’t stand up to the system and she is sent to a mental institution.

Christine’s long battle against the corrupt system eventually changed the course of the city’s history.

“I found it very inspiring in the end,” Angelina continues.

“It became a story about democracy in action, a story about justice, about suffering a great loss and fighting through it and making a change for the future, for other people and questioning government and the police. Christine had to walk a very fine line and then, when she did speak out, they locked her in an institution, so she had this real struggle to try and behave with these very, very corrupt people.”

Angelina gave birth to twins in July, they were apparently asleep in her room at London’s Claridge’s when we meet.

Knox and Vivienne are the latest additions to her and Brad’s brood, but were still just a glint in their mother’s eye while she was filming.

The actress says her other children – Maddox, seven, Pax, four, Zahara, two, who were all adopted, and two-year-old Shiloh, her first child with Brad, were a comfort during the harrowing shoot.

“I had my kids with me as much as possible and after doing a day at work I would run home,” she reveals.

“I just wanted to be silly, it was so emotional that I found myself being really goofy. I was so happy that I knew where my kids were and they were OK.”

Christine’s story also made Angelina feel closer to her mother Marcheline Bertrand, who died last year from cancer. She says her mother was strong like Christine.

“Her name was Marcheline, but everybody called her marshmallow because she was just the softest most gentle woman in the world,” says Angelina, suddenly tearful.

“She was really sweet and she would never get angry. But when it came to her kids she was just really, really fierce.

“This is very much her and her story, in that she was that woman I related to who had that elegance and strength through just knowing what was right.”

Angelina admits she has struggled to cope with her mother’s loss, but is thankful for what she has.

“My mum was far too young, she was 58. But she lived long enough to meet my children, most of my children. So you can only focus on how grateful you are,” she said.

“And when you love somebody that much, you are happy that they are out of pain.

“As much as you miss them, the important thing is they don’t suffer.

“I have been so blessed to have healthy children and a great partner. We are having such a wonderful time raising our children together and there is a lot of love in our home. I remind myself of that anytime I would think of what I have lost. So I feel very lucky.”

One of Changeling’s biggest pull factors for the Oscar-winning actress was the opportunity to work with Clint Eastwood.

“I had always wanted to work with him because I love his work. In person, he’s a really good man, he’s very solid, very strong and great with his crew. He’s one of those very fair leaders,” she says of the director.

“He’s very decisive and he’s famous for shooting one or two takes, which does sound terrifying for an actor.

“But because of that you know he’s not going to drain you emotionally. He will be prepared.

“It does allow for you to push yourself.

“And also, because he does do just one take, everything is very fresh. As actors, we tend to over-think things and analyse ourselves and, because you don’t have time for that, it keeps it very in the moment and very real.”

Angelina was born in Los Angeles to actress mum Marcheline and actor father Jon Voight. Her parents split not long after she was born and she was brought up by her mother in New York.

The family moved back to LA when she was 11, where Angelina attended acting classes and went through a teen rebellion phase.

She started modelling and appearing in music videos and low budget films. In 1999, she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role as a sociopath alongside Winona Ryder in Girl, Interrupted.

But it was as feisty archeologist Lara Croft in the 2001 film version of the best-selling video game Tomb Raider that Angelina came to international attention.

In 2005, she met Brad Pitt on the set of Mr And Mrs Smith, where the pair played a married couple of secret assassins.

And, last year, she won critical acclaim for her portrayal of Mariane Pearl in A Mighty Heart, whose reporter husband Daniel was killed in the Middle East.

For an actress at the top of her game, it seems unusual that Angelina plans to bow out of the business. But her family clearly comes first.

“I’m not making some big retirement announcement, but I have a big family and I have a lot of responsibility at home and I have the good fortune financially not to have to work all the time and I just feel privileged that I get to be at home a lot and I feel a responsibility to be there as much as I can,” she adds.

“Maybe I’ll make a film once a year and then maybe once every two years and then maybe eventually I’ll stop.”

As for Changeling, Angelina is widely tipped to win an Oscar for the role.

“Anything that acknowledges a film that you are proud of and that you worked hard on means a great deal. But, at the same time, if nothing is ever acknowledged you are just as proud and you know you worked just as hard,” she added.

Changeling is out on Wednesday

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Voice-of-the-Wetlands-by-Mac-McKinney-081122-91.html
Entire article at link with Pictures

FEMA is in the doghouse in the Lower Ninth Ward, while Brad Pitt is a Top Dog. (photo by Mac McKinney)

Brad Pitt started to fall in love with the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans while he was shooting the smash hit Interview with the Vampire from the novel by Ann Rice (before, of course, she found Jesus), starring Tom Cruise and himself, Brad playing guilt-ridden vampire Louis to Cruise’s black-hearted blood-sucker Lestat.

Some of the film was actually shot in the Ward’s Jackson (Andrew) Barracks, established by the U.S. Army way back in 1834 and ultimately taken over by the Louisiana National Guard, while more shooting was done along the Mississippi River embankment running along the southern Lower Ninth.

Brad, having been hoodooed, like many of us, by the romance and magic of New Orleans, over time had remained attached to the fortunes of the city, so that when Katrina struck, he was deeply concerned, and could only grow more heart-broken and frustrated as he saw how desperate the plight of New Orleanians had become and continued to be as the folly and incompetence of government responses on all levels heightened. He soon felt he had to get involved:

“When Brad Pitt visited the Lower 9th Ward for the first time after the storm, he was shocked by what he saw: the remnants of people’s lives strewn across the streets and an entire neighborhood torn apart and turned upside down. Pitt was even more disturbed by the lack of a clear plan to address the situation. Many were quietly saying there was no chance the Lower 9th Ward would ever be re-built.

Inspired by the courage and hope of the residents he met, Pitt resolved to do whatever he could to help them rebuild. Just as importantly, he wanted to help recreate and nurture the unique culture and spirit of the Lower 9th Ward, which symbolizes the soul of New Orleans. He understood instinctively that a New Orleans rebuilt without the Lower 9th Ward would never be whole.” (source)

By 2007, Brad was shooting another movie in New Orleans, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (due out on Christmas Day, 2008-based on the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story), he and Angelina Jolie had actually purchased a lovely house in the French Quarter, and Brad, as only he could, had already been taking concrete and dramatic steps to help New Orleans in a big, big way.

Brad Pitt’s Passion

What was Brad Pitt up to? Well, you won’t understand unless I let you in on a deep, dark secret. You see, Brad is a junkie, an architectural junkie. To quote from Dave McNair in an Arpil 27, 2006 article in The Hook:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect. I have also just come out with my first book, a combination of poetry, photography and essays entitled “Post Katrina Blues”, my reflections on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans two years after Katrina struck, published by San Francisco Bay Press.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/features/film/e3ie147587b897a0735e3c41cd2e41503e4
Entire article at link
Made in Louisiana

“People have been successful in getting their money back from the state in a timely manner,” says Joseph D. Chianese, vp business development for Entertainment Partners, a leading provider of payroll and production management services. “And because of the sheer volume of productions that have been going into the state, it has been able to develop a local crew base, which is important when you’re bringing a production somewhere.”

It can be argued that a similarly attractive mix of incentives, crew and infrastructure can be found elsewhere (e.g., New York), but the people of Louisiana hold a trump card that is uniquely theirs, and its name is New Orleans.

“You can still shoot in New Orleans for the 1800s and the early 1900s and barely change a thing,” says Cean Chaffin, producer of Paramount’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” which shot in and around the city.

It’s no secret that beauty can come with a price. The devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 has inspired filmmakers to steer clear of New Orleans during the peak of hurricane season or simply base their productions in cities to the north like Shreveport, which has effectively diversified and expanded the state’s film production economy. It has also made the state more eager to court film production and related businesses, according to Jason Sciavicco, founder of Horizon Entertainment, who produces “docu-reality” sports series “Two-a-days” (MTV) and “Varsity, Inc.” (ESPN).

“I’ve been to a lot of different states, and I don’t think there’s another in the country that is more aggressive in wanting to help films,” says Sciavicco, who recently formed a joint venture with Louisiana Media Co. to move Horizon from Atlanta to New Orleans. “I think that’s because they need the help right now.”

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20081123/AE/811239997/1060&title=Aspen%20Film%20announces%20screenings

ASPEN — Aspen Film has announced a partial list of titles to be presented in its Academy Screenings program, opening next month. The 18th annual Academy Screenings, featuring 22 films considered contenders for Academy Awards, is set for Dec. 21-Jan. 3 at Paepcke Auditorium.

Among the films to be screened are “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” adapted from a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald and starring Brad Pitt as a man who ages backwards; “Revolutionary Road,” director Sam Mendes’ drama about a struggling young couple (Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio) in 1950s Connecticut; and “Defiance,” about three Jewish brothers who build a forest village to protect themselves from the Nazis.

Also: “Gran Torino,” director Clint Eastwood’s story of a Korean War veteran who tried to reform his teenage neighbor; “Frost/Nixon,” an adaptation of the Tony Award-winning play about David Frost’s 1977 televised interview of Richard Nixon, starring Michael Sheen as Frost and Frank Langella as Nixon; and director Gus Van Sant’s “Milk,” a biopic starring Sean Penn as the openly gay San Francisco supervisor, Harvey Milk.

Past Academy Screenings presentations have included Oscar winners “Crash,” “Million Dollar Baby” and “There Will Be Blood.”

http://www.observer.com/2008/media/paper-record-goes-team-aniston#comments

Paper of Record Goes Team Aniston

This time, it was Ms. Jolie’s charity work that helped turn the story. Long interested in international humanitarian work, Ms. Jolie appeared in Pakistan, where she visited camps housing Afghan refugees, and even met with President Pervez Musharraf. Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt made a subsequent trip to Kashmir to bring attention to earthquake victims.

In a conspiracy like this, you build from the outer edges and you go step by step…

Is The Times out to get Angelina Jolie—the woman whom Esquire’s Tom Junod has called “the best woman in the world, in terms of her generosity, her dedication, and her courage”?

Well, take a look at the cover of this week’s New York Times Magazine.

Really uncool.

http://www.makeitrightnola.org

Good Morning all. Sorry for some of the long posts. They did not look that long when ready. Have a great Sunday. Check out Changeling if you have not seen it. It is a very good Movie. I am looking forward to seeing Benjamin Button. Early reviews have been great and BP is a described as a great character actor in a leading man’s body. Both BP and AJ are a the top of their game, professionally and personally. Hens can scour the Internet for some sign of trouble, but BP and AJ continue to live their lives, raise their six adorable children, be of service and perfect their craft. It is all good. Peace to all.

oops when reading. My bad!!!!

bahha…maniston!!!backlash!

dianad1968 @ 11/23/2008 at 11:05 am

#547

bdj,

It seems X is coming of as a loser again with the Times magazine interview, as people are questioning the timing of that versus the Angie article. Huvane may just have overstepped here.

BBC interview

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7744705.stm

Angelina Jolie on her new film

Hollywood star Angelina Jolie’s latest film Changeling is based on the harrowing true story of a single mother trying to track down her missing son.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, it is set in Los Angeles in 1928 and Angelina Jolie plays the part of the desperate mother, Christine Collins.

On his Sunday morning programme the BBC’s Andrew Marr asked her how hard it had been to play the role of a single mother back in the 1920s when attitudes to the role of women were very different.

awards:
Thanks for your posts – luv them.

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 11:24 am

The arguement that “Oh well other celebrities do it..!” doesn’t fly. The point is that Jolie has (((always))) maintained that she doesn’t care what people think of her and doesn’t pay attention to what’s written etc about her.

Jolie has repeated this over and over and as usual, what she says and what she does are 2 different things. Have you found and viewed the 2004 interview with Jolie “Inside the Actors Studio” yet?!! Where she talks candidly about her heroin use, her cutting herself and how she admitted herself into a mental institution… it’s a must see. After watching that, it’s very easy to see how Jolie has merely transferred addictions to collecting kids for photo ops. Look it up, Jolie’s behavior is classic compulsive and obsessive, just like when she did heroin and cut herself.

Jolie is a true narcissist.

Jolie is one lonely, insecure pathetic addict who is finally getting called on and outed for her disgusting soulless behavior.

Also, how is it that some people think Jolie is a great mother and applaud that she can have a career and have kids?

Her and Pitt have 6 nannies, chefs, house keepers, groundskeepers, a staff of over 30! They take private jets. Life with a staff of over 30 and millions of dollars doesn’t make them heroic parents! Puh-LEEZE!!!

Pitt just stated on Oprah that they don’t cook! Pitt also said on Oprah that they (also) have night time nannies so that they can sleep!! Parents? Uh, NO! (((((They don’t even parent their own kids.))))) They use their kids for photo ops to promote their movies. Are you people as delusional as Jolie?

Hags are crazy @ 11/23/2008 at 11:36 am

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 11:24 am

The one who is done in HW is your idol Anuston. You want to know why .. 1 ) she went to THE IVY .. a place where D-list actors frequent to have her pictures taken. 2) she dates a famewhore doucebag John Mayer (desperate much) 3. To be relevant had to mention Angelina Jolier or Brad Pitt. 4) Finished 4 movies but had a hard time getting it into theaters. 5. She’ll be 40 next years it’s gonna be BYE BYE HW.. helloo Home for the AGED hahahahah!!!

The next TV show X will be in will be DANCING WITH THE STARS, bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhh

piper, with a low @ 11/23/2008 at 11:42 am

Good morning, ladies…

I see that things have settled down, for the most part; however, I saw something on Perez’s site that, for me, makes me cheer Angelina’s efforts to keep journalists’ eyes on the ball even more.

Newsweek ‘went there’ with Michelle Williams, which to me, seems unbelievably inappropriate, given that Heath’s death was pretty recent and that his and Michelle’s relationship at the time of his death was probably complicated. I read the excerpt last night and was so upset, I didn’t bother coming here to talk about it.

Without a doubt, Michelle isn’t in Angelina’s league, in terms of star power, but she deserved better than having Newsweek ‘going there’ and Perez posting a transcript of the exchange. And as far as I know, Michelle was never one of those stars who detailed her personal life incessantly.

I am really disappointed in Newsweek and in many ways, they have justified why celebs can and should restrict certain topics.

trés jolie @ 11/23/2008 at 11:50 am

Angie should live in France.Only in France. She is honored there.

andjddd @ 11/22/2008 at 10:31 am

One thing is for sure – jolie has the dumbest fans.
You guys are more dumb then her to buy the crap.
——————–

How dumb of Jeffrey Sachs, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Richard Haass, Colin Powell, Clint Eastwood, Paul Allen, Dustin Hoffman, Diane Feinstein, Bono, Mia Farrow, etc.

Since they are fans of Angelina Jolie…

Alexanderina @ 11/23/2008 at 11:53 am

BDJ, thanks for the wonderful news articles and links. Very good read

dianad1968 @ 11/23/2008 at 11:55 am

#554,

jolie is done,

Can you sound even more stupid? I don’t remember Brad saying in his interview with OPrah that they didn’t cook, and if he did, what, Angie has gone on record sayng she doesn’t know how to cook. So what is your point? I suppose you have personal knowledge of the number of staff they have. Probably their lawyers and secuity need to know about you. You may be dangerous to the family.

You had better calm down, I can see the frothing and foaming from where I am. Can’t be to good for your health now. :lol:

momiji (SLB) @ 11/23/2008 at 11:56 am

for lylian only

Well, lylian, I was not looking for a response from you in the form of an “essay” on the bailing out of AIG, FRE, and FNM. All I want to say is

1) You blamed Bush for the economy. But look around, the whole world is having problems, including some of the G8 or G7 (is it G12 now? ) countries.

2) Befroe the election, you said Obama’s plans were much better than McCaine’s. At that time, I wanted you to know, what they promised is NEVER gonna be what the final plan that will be passed.

3) My last post was asking your opinion on “Obama’s urging Congress to bail out the big auto”, because in all your previous posts, you were so worried about the deficit, funding of the bail out thru tax increase. You still havent answered my post, is it because now that the election is over, there’s NO need to bash the oppposing candidate or the Bush adm?

Lylian, I’m merely upset at those posts, namely the calculation of the debt vs GDP, the bashing of the Bush adm, Palin’s passport….etc.

By the way, about that “detailed” calculation of GDP, growth, debt– somehow, I just feel something is missing, sometimes there are some variables that just cant be quantified, and I dont have the time to figure this out. I still think that calculation is meaningless.

Please, I have a short attention span, simplify your response to me, if you feel the need to reply.

peace !!

P.S. You once said, “….Americans were not respected overseas….”. Well, I was in Japan for 2 weeks, I felt very much welcomed. Americans are still well liked. There will always be some people who disagree with our govt’s policy, but that does not translate into “unwanted or unwelcome”.

momiji (SLB) @ 11/23/2008 at 12:02 pm

J is done –

Angie is not using any drug. She has NOT dabble in any drug for the past 8 or 10 years.

Have you read that Aniston was taking “male hormone” resulting in miscarriage? Well, all the internet blogs were talking about her usage.

Have you read that Aniston loves happy? Happy means the expensive white powder. I hope she’s not using it now

Good morning JPville. :) Wishing everyone a great Sunday. I’ve been catching up because I haven’t been around a lot lately, #525 Cliniqua, great post. Enjoy your day everyone. BBL

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 11:24 am

You have been saying the same thing For 4 years yet she’s making movies,get top dollars,kicking it at the box office,she’s with Brad,the government asked her to go to Iraq.lol

Jen lost one million viewers for 30 rock after Vogue and Oprah.Now the public is calling for her to move on.The women from the INSIDER said “he just not into you move on.ouch

Now we know she begged for a part in 30 rock,she’s lying that she was flying through NYC and was thinking how good it would be to work in NY again and the call came.LOL she begged.

to the blogger (paid by Huvane)-

Please rely this to your Aniston camp.

Taking back a boyfriend who has humiliated you in public = LOW SELF ESTEEM .

2 jolie is done,

Are you going to respond to my post to you on JA’s M meet my dad’s thread?

You apparently could not explain why your post there did not appear of the website you claimed as your source, could you?

You fabricate press release to defame Jolie. You damaged the reputation of a charitable organization for your own demented gain. This action tells me you are quite mentally sick.

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 1:05 pm

Watch the Pitt interview on Oprah again, he says they dont cook and have night time nannies so that they can sleep.

And you crazy loon, Jolie has talked about their many staffers that, as she put it, “help keep the family flow..” and has discussed how she has a nanny for each child, and has talked about her chefs etc. They have a nanny for each kid. There are freakin pictures of different women carrying the kids at the same time. Get a grip on reality.

Jolie stated that the (((only))) publication that she’d believe what’s said about her is The New York Times.

Man karma is sweet.

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 1:05 pm

Watch the Pitt interview on Oprah again, he says they dont cook and have night time nannies so that they can sleep.

And you crazy loon, Jolie has talked about their many staffers that, as she put it, “help keep the family flow..” and has discussed how she has a nanny for each child, and has talked about her chefs etc. They have a nanny for each kid. There are freakin pictures of different women carrying the kids at the same time. Get a grip on reality.

Jolie stated that the (((only))) publication that she’d believe what’s said about her is The New York Times.

Man karma is sweet.

# 554 jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 11:24 am

You’re a fraud, honey. Voe already busted you. She checked out both those sites you mentioned and there was nothing whatever about Jolie.

You’re a lying bítch and a fake. Slandering Angelina is not going to save your fake idol from going down the tubes.

Cate Blanchett will probably knock Angie out for an oscar nomination.

Angie should work more. Go to the IMDB – she has no films in the horizont, but Pitt has 6 or 7. Why doesnt he stay home and let her work. I bet if he gets an oscar nod he will go to the oscars, and Angie will go with him. thats going to be an humiliation.

I hope she dumps him soon, if not her career is over.

jolie is done @ 11/23/2008 at 1:05 pm
Jolie … has discussed how she has a nanny for each child, and has talked about her chefs etc. They have a nanny for each kid. There are freakin pictures of different women carrying the kids at the same time. Get a grip on reality.
**************************************************************************************************

Where did Jolie say they have a nanny for each kid? Post the source and the link or shut the fcuk up.

Where are the pictures of different women carry the kids at the same time? Post the source and the link or shut the fcuk up.

As a matter of fact, just shut the fcuk up anyway. You’ve already been exposed as a lying fraud. Why the hell should we believe anything you post on here?

Making up lies and bullshit about Angelina