Aniston, Doggy Wanna Treat?

#108| Jen did not say that/ it was one of her “friends” and i thought it low of Jen to let her lie like that
Brad has always wanted kids… and
GIVEN THE FACT THAT.. he is now the father of three..I BELIEVE HIM!

110 | Anne

ITA — Brad has been saying for the longest time that he wanted children. It was Jennifer who kept putting him off - first because of FRIENDS, then later on because of her movie commitments. There’s NOTHING WRONG about not wanting to have any kids, but there’s definitely something wrong about promising to your husband to have them (a lot of links about Jen saying that having baby “is in the works” abound), and yet going back on your word.

But that’s okay — Jen has now the life she wants, no kids, a lot of movies done and some more coming up, and a boyfriend who makes her laugh and who is fiercely loyal. She looks good for her age, is consistenly chosen best dressed, has best legs, etc. She finally has everything going her way!!! Yay for her.

i can’t believe Brad married that boring and plain…. (typo)

108 | Margaret
______________________________________________
Err, um let’s not re-write history to suit a story you want.

Pitt way before he even knew a Jennifer Aniston existed stated that his main goal was to make a life and family with someone. Years, we’re talking years before he got married he stated that. It seems the only person who didn’t believe he wanted that was the one he married. Everyone else in the free world knew children and family were his ultimate goal.

fifi’s right. Nothing wrong about not wanting to have children. It’s a choice but when you’re a couple and it’s not the choice of your partner and you lead them to believe it is, then it’s trouble. She made a deal and she she couldn’t close it and by that time there was too much water under the bridge and damage done to repair it. He moved forward with his life and Aniston is still in Malibu practically living with Courtney and David and still walking the beach with her dogs, her children

117 | Mia

The proof is in the pudding Mia.

Six questions Jennifer Aniston faces as she aims for movie stardom

With “Friends” coming to an end on May 6, Jennifer Aniston, the show’s most popular and glamorous star, is expected to make a simple leap to major movie stardom.

It may not be simple at all.

On the face of it, Aniston is well-poised to join actresses like Nicole Kidman, Cameron Diaz and Renee Zellweger on Hollywood’s A-list.

She could even make a charge on Julia Roberts’ turf as America’s highest-earning female star.

Aniston boosted her standing last month with the box-office hit “Along Came Polly.” Her fee of around $5 million per movie now seems set to double.

But there are pressing questions that Aniston faces as she tries to make a permanent transition from TV to movies a hill that’s proved too steep for some. And some of those questions will pose personal dilemmas for her:

– Is it more important to her to have children?

– Is she likely to be weighed down by the continuing rift with her mother?

_Will marital tensions emerge if her career outflanks that of husband Brad Pitt?

_Can she “open” a movie?

_Can she make it on her own without the “Friends” support system?

_Is she too nice or too neurotic a screen presence?

Aniston has said often enough that she wants to start a family with Pitt as soon as “Friends” ends. It seems unlikely, however, that she will disappear from view like Annette Bening, who put her career on hold the moment she married Warren Beatty.

Although high on family values, Aniston has, if anything, stepped up her workload since marriage (and she certainly doesn’t need the money). The fact that babies have been penciled in to accommodate Aniston’s schedule means that professional ambition remains a high priority.

If Aniston’s life were as smooth as her complexion, as untangled as her trend-setting hair, she might cut a boring figure. But her famous rift with her mother is intriguing because it adds a dark spot to Aniston’s otherwise perfect public persona.

She has been estranged for eight years from her mother, Nancy, a former model, ever since the latter mined their relationship for personal gain on tabloid TV and in a 1999 book, “From Mother to Daughter to Friends.”

In a recent interview with Diane Sawyer, Aniston seemed nearly ready to dismantle her personal Berlin Wall. “Now we’re sort of all standing in our corners, just waiting for the other to approach,” she told Sawyer.

Pitt, apparently the easygoing half of the couple, has gotten Aniston to the point where she can imagine forgiving Mom. Yet that thought agitated her during the Sawyer interview.

“I should have a shock thing around my neck like those dogs, when they start to bark. When I start to cry, I just get electrocuted,” Aniston said.

Aniston and Pitt are a rare couple in Hollywood in that they not only seem happy, stable and mutually supportive, but seldom prompt anyone to say anything negative about them.

No one has ever claimed it’s a sham marriage to shield one party from gossip or to enhance the lesser light’s fame. There is no lesser light _ Aniston and Pitt had each succeeded individually before they met. Their fame and creativity are not interdependent, which is a healthy state of affairs.

When one half of a showbiz couple starts to become a bigger star than the other, it often breeds insecurity. Pitt hasn’t had a hit in a while and could start to feel sorry for himself if Aniston becomes a Hollywood darling. Then again, he might welcome it.

If all it took to be a contender for Roberts’ box-office throne were beauty and talent, then hundreds of winsome waitresses would be throwing off their aprons and hiring agents. Aniston has unique qualities _ not least her empathic nature _ that position her to become one of those few actresses who can “open” movies on the strength of their name alone.

Her early attempts to “carry” movies like “Picture Perfect” and “The Object of My Affection” failed. But Aniston holds her own opposite Ben Stiller in “Along Came Polly.” She has also judiciously sprinkled her movie career with the splashy (“Bruce Almighty”), the serious (“The Good Girl”), and the offbeat (“Office Space”), as if anticipating that one day she’d need to cover many bases as a Hollywood leading lady.

All her “Friends” co-stars have made movies, too, but they’ve mostly been hampered by their TV personas: Monica (Courteney Cox Arquette) is fastidious. Ross (David Schwimmer) is neurotic. Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow) is a ditz. Chandler (Matthew Perry) is a loser. Joey (Matt LeBlanc) is dumb. The movie parts they get tend to play on those qualities _ though Kudrow has managed to break type in films like “Wonderland” and Cox Arquette has a dramatic role in the upcoming film “November.”

Aniston’s Rachel, who went from rich, spoiled brat to self-sufficient buyer for Ralph Lauren, is the only “friend” not saddled with a defining personality trait that would limit future roles.

Aniston also has what it takes in ways that no resume can convey. She has the girl-next-door freshness of Sandra Bullock and the sophisticated comedy instincts of Carole Lombard.

Without the “Friends” structure to bind her, Aniston’s own quirky personality will create a niche for her that combines Rachel’s innate sweetness with those neuroses Aniston claims are at her core. A little strangeness adds depth.

Playing against Rachel’s vivacity, Aniston was good as the depressed married store clerk who has an affair with a stock boy in “The Good Girl.” Director Miguel Arteta got Aniston to tone down her physical comedy (by carrying weights so she wouldn’t gesticulate) and deflate her hair (by not washing it).

Aniston could find it a greater stretch to play a cynic, a ***** or a femme fatale. Even in the name of versatility, she may not want to squander the 10 years of goodwill Rachel has accrued. It is also hard to imagine Aniston stealing literary heroine roles from Nicole Kidman.

That doesn’t preclude her trying a dramatically dark role. It is easier for comic actors to try drama than vice versa, not least because people often use humor to mask pain.

Aniston first became a class clown after her dad (soap star John Aniston) left the family when she was 9. Now, with her 35th birthday approaching on Feb. 11, she can begin to let the pain show through the wisecracks.

Whatever she decides to do with her “Friends” momentum, at least she’ll never have to go back to waitressing or selling Poconos timeshares, as she did before she became famous.

She can, of course, decide to sit back and do nothing. More likely, she’ll decide to try and have it all.

Copyright © Northern Iowan 2006

#120 Someone Had Great Expectations

Thanks for posting that enlightening article. It really gives insight why Jen did not want to have Brad’s baby after Friends — she was really at the top of her game, people even equated her with Brad’s stature. In fact, wasn’t she chosen by Forbes as the Number 1 star in terms of media coverage and star power in 2004 (or 2005)? Of course that would turn one’s head and I don’t think I can blame her for believing that she was a star of even greater magnitude than Brad. Too bad it didn’t really work out for her — Julia’s throne was not given to her but to Reese W, an Oscar-winning, 29-year-old mother of 2.

121 Julie,

We all know that it is much easier to adopt children from a different country, and much quicker and easier to adopt when money is involved. No one is saying that children should be “bought”, just saying that it is much easier when you have the money. I have several friends who wanted to adopt from other countries, but it took time and alot of money. Funny how celebs are able to adopt so quickly and easily.

THE ONLY PRODUCTIVE ENDEAVOR THAT ANISTON COULD EVER POSSIBLY ACCOMPLISH NOW HER MOVIE CAREER IS FINITO - IS TO USE HER BIG CHIN TO REST MY BALLS ON.

She looks horrible. Leathery, OLD. She has NO career unless she
starts doing character parts–the spinster upstairs neighbor, the
homely sister, that kind of thing. No more romantic leads for her.
Hollywood isn’t kind to women over 40 unless you’re Meryl
Streep–especially women whose looks and talent weren’t much to
start with.

Lets see:
Childless, loveless, brainless, careerless, selfish, weak, insecure, FAKE.
And we all wonder why BP found it a breeze to dump this idiot for AJ?????? WTF??????

#120: she just had a #1 movie, that knocked X men 3 off the top spot. She is doing very well with her career. It is right on track. I assume her expectations have been fulfilled and are in great shape after she dumped her vain, moronic ex.