Angelina Jolie’s W Magazine Photo Spread Revealed

PIctures are beautiful

http://www.flawedhollywood.com

Love this part (about Rosie’s comments on her and Brad)

“No,” she says. “I mean, how should someone respond to something like that? She doesn’t know me. I have nothing to defend in my life. I’m sure she’s one of many people that have opinions.”

People can spew negative things about them. Who cares? Brad and Angie sure don’t, why should we?

How can anyone here complain that the media exploits this couple when they choose to exploit themselves? These moments with their children are PRIVATE and should be kept so. Why even feel the inclination to share these pics with the public unless you enjoy the publicity that comes along with it? Hypocritical much of them? And don’t even attempt to justify it with the excuses that they are proud and want to share their life with the world or that Brad is an artist and blah, blah, blah…All I can say is don’t keep expressing in interviews how the media is invasive and disturbs your life when you do the same thing to yourself in this magazine…they are as guilty of keeping the media interest on them as the papz and press…

October 12, 2008
States’ Film Production Incentives Cause Jitters
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

LOS ANGELES — Already on the hook for billions to bail out Wall Street, taxpayers are also finding themselves stuck with a growing tab for state programs intended to increase local film production.

One of the most shocking bills has come due in Louisiana, where residents are financing a hefty share of Brad Pitt’s next movie — $27,117,737, to be exact, which the producers will receive by cashing or selling off valuable tax credits.

As the number of movies made under these plans multiplied in recent years, the state money turned into a welcome rescue plan for Hollywood at a time when private investors were fleeing the movies. But the glamour business has not always been kind to those who pick up the costs, and states are moving to rein in their largess that has allowed producers to be reimbursed for all manner of expenditures, whether the salaries of stars, the rental of studio space or meals for the crew.

Louisiana, one of the most assertive players in the subsidy game, wound up covering that outsize piece of the nearly $167 million budget of Mr. Pitt’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” — the state’s biggest movie payout to date — when producers for Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers qualified the coming movie, a special-effects drama, under an incentive that has since been tightened. Separately, Louisiana’s former film commissioner is set to be sentenced in January to as much as 15 years in federal prison for taking bribes to inflate film budgets (though not that of “Button”) and, hence, pay higher subsidies.

Michigan, its own budget sagging, is in the middle of a hot political fight over a generous 40 percent rebate on expenditures to filmmakers that was carried out, with little opposition, only last April. Producers of films for studios like Warner Brothers and the Weinstein Company rushed to cash in, just as homegrown businesses were squeezed by a new business tax and surcharge. Rebellious legislators from both parties are now looking to put a cap on the state’s annual film spending, which some have estimated could quickly hit $200 million a year.

In Rhode Island, meanwhile, the rules have toughened considerably. That happened after The Providence Journal reported in March that producers of a straight-to-DVD picture called “Hard Luck,” which starred Wesley Snipes and Cybill Shepherd, had picked up $2.65 million in state tax credits on a budget of $11 million, even though it had reported paying only $1.9 million of the total to Rhode Islanders.

“With this much money involved, there’s going to be a temptation to hype budgets,” said Peter Dekom, a veteran entertainment business lawyer who is an adviser to New Mexico’s incentive program.

The vogue for state film subsidies appears to have started in Colorado early this decade, with a briefly financed Defense Against Canada law that was devised to win production back from Vancouver and Toronto. Louisiana and New Mexico soon came on board.

By this year, about 40 states were offering significant subsidies, turning the United States into what the Incentives Office, a consulting firm in Santa Monica, Calif., has called the New Bulgaria. It is a reference to what was once the film industry’s favorite low-cost production site.

Virtually all of the programs use a state tax system to reimburse producers for money spent on movies or TV shows shot in the state. Some, like Michigan’s, simply refund a percentage of expenditures to the producer. Others, like Louisiana’s, issue a tax credit that can reduce the taxes a production pays or be sold to someone else. Either way, the state gives up revenue that otherwise would be collected to put money in the producer’s pockets.

Advocates, of course, argue that these programs create jobs.

One of the country’s most successful programs is in New Mexico, which has backed movies like the Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men” and next year’s “Terminator Salvation,” the latest sequel in the action series, with a reported budget of $200 million.

New Mexico officials boast of having used a 25 percent production cost rebate to build a local film industry that has attracted more than $600 million in direct spending since 2003, and an estimated $1.8 billion in total financial impact, as of last June. And in fiscal year 2008, the productions in the state generated 142,577 days of employment, up from 25,293 in 2004.

Elsewhere, however, critics have sharply challenged the notion that state subsidies for the film business can ever buy more than momentary glitter.

“There’s no evidence yet that this is a particularly efficient or effective way to create jobs,” said Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

The nonprofit center reviews budget and tax policies in Massachusetts, which is spending about $60 million a year on producer credits. A recent study by Mr. Ber

I just don´t understand what they want to accomplish with these photographs?

Are they not the ones who always wanted to keep their “private” life to themselves?

Then why the hell (if not for narcistic reasons) would they publish these pictures? Shots of themselves I would understand—–but why the children?

They don´t even have a say in this (they just don´t know any better), they´re just being exposed —————and for what reason?

Again, one can only assume that all the attention is truly getting to them.

The photos are beautiful and tastefuul done.Anyone know were I can get W in the UK.Its a must have for fans.

ha bdj you are the one who is making it seem like Angelna is overexposed with your fantastic daily rundown of articles. keep it coming.

Angelina and family have only been in the media 3 times in recent months: the People/Hello magazine covers of the twins birth, Changeling’ premiere and assorted events/interviews related to it and this W magazine cover spread. that’s it!!!!!!!!!! hardly overexposure. The Today show interview will most likely be about Changeling. Brad will be up next with his highly anticipated new film and assorted media attached to it. LOL Sorry haters! These two are in demand working actors in their profession.

later…….

On and mary, would you sit down while someone who does not KNOW you like Roseanne Barr open her twat and say something about you….

Well, Jolie told her and you what she thinks of her in this magazine. And that is great of her.

Mary @ 10/13/2008 at 11:39 am

As far as I know their singular complaint is the way the paps ‘crowd’ the children and Angie has even suggested that they could use long lens which would be just as effective for the paps (after all THEY certainly aren’t after any art shots). So stop your transparent whining, Mary!

bdj @ 10/13/2008 at 11:47 am From the W Magazine
November 2008

Brad Pitt’s project for W actually sprang from a conversation W’s Creative Director Dennis Freedman had with another photographer, Bruce Weber. Freedman had been mulling over how to show anything new about one of the most photographed women in the world and Weber pointed out that, in his opinion, the best pictures of Elizabeth Taylor were taken by her third husband, Mike Todd.

“I was surprised that Brad accepted the challenge,” says Freedman of Pitt’s enthusiastic response. “Last time we collaborated, I was struck by his sensitivity to the subtleties of photography. I knew that he possessed a highly tuned critical eye and would be very demanding of himself. Still, I wasn’t prepared for the beauty and intimacy of the images he made of Angelina and the children.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I love how much attention and detail he seem to put into everything about this spread. Not just the photos themselves but what type of film he wanted to use. I wonder if he puts that type of attention in everything? Is it hot in here?

jane was there when the pictures were taken looking after the twins.I enjoy your pain.Thank you for clicking on the link tina,Brad and Angelina knew people like you would be the first to click and make the cover popular.tina we all know you like jen why else would you be here.

Jill @ 10/13/2008 at 11:13 am
who the hell hates.. Its my opinion there sickos and always will be..no jealousy just crazy ass people!!!!! I feel so sorry for those beautiful children.. Jane Pitt help your son before its to late!!! and Please don’t tell me angie is gorgeous in these pictures she looks horrible skinny her arms her legs she looks anorexic even on the red carpet if she is sick my prayers are with her..