Angelina Jolie Tortures Jennifer Aniston?

I AM A TROLL

The Dark Knight’s Aaron Eckhart thinks Angelina Jolie would make a purr-fect Catwoman — if there’s another Batman installment.

“I thought that was a fantastic idea,” Eckhart told Usmagazine.com at the GQ Men of the Year party in L.A. on Nov. 18. “When I read that, I felt like all of our records that we made [would] be broken if she did Catwoman.”

Look back at Angelina Jolie’s famous on-screen roles.

(Julie Newmar, who played Catwoman in the original Batman TV series, recently told New York’s Daily News that she has knowledge that Jolie has inquired about playing the part.)

See Angelina Jolie’s baby photo.

Another name that’s been thrown around? Johnny Depp — as the Riddler.

“Every time I hear these guys, I feel worse about myself!” Eckhart joked.

He was mum when asked if he’d star in another Batman flick.

“I mean, that’s an interesting question,” he told Us. “You know, I don’t think I will. I think I died in the movie.”

Look back at unforgettable moments from The Dark Knight.

But it all remains a mystery.

Eckart joked, “I’m coming back as a totally different character.”

Tell Us: Would Angelina make a good Catwoman?

Jen has much more class than AJ will EVER have!

jenho looks like a horse next to angie.

OH GOD!! Tabloids are so ridiculous!

ANGIE IS THE SWEETEST THING EVER- PLEASE!

oh god. more angelina bashing. us weekly sure has a vendetta against her for some reason. they always side with jen and never blame brad for anything. stupid.

I don’t believe any of it. Anyway I love angies picture…so beautiful

TRASH MAGAZINE, all I can say.

There seems to be a lot more negative press about Angelina lately. They could sue the mag if the stripping on the set story is a lie.
Didn’t some other star sue the tabs and won in the past several years, i wonder why she is getting so hatred directed her way now, four years later?

NEW YORK TIMES OUTS JOLIE FOR THE MANIPULATIVE MEDIAHO SHE IS.
Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image

By BROOKS BARNES
Published: November 20, 2008
LOS ANGELES — When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into 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.

The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue — the magazine’s best-selling in seven years — was a publicity coup for Ms. Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.

In the People interview, there were questions about her and Mr. Pitt’s charity work and no use of the word “Brangelina,” the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.

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.”

While all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another, Ms. Jolie accomplishes it with a determination, a self-reliance and a degree of success that is particularly notable. The actress does not employ a publicist or an agent. The keys to her public image belong to her alone, although she does rely on her longtime manager, Geyer Kosinski, as a conduit.

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.

“She’s scary smart,” said Bonnie Fuller, the former editor of Us Weekly and Star magazines. “But smart only takes you so far. She also has an amazing knack, perhaps more than any other star, for knowing how to shape a public image.”

Ms. Jolie did not respond to interview requests and neither did Mr. Kosinski. Her lawyer, Robert Offer, declined to comment. But through interviews with nearly two dozen people who have worked directly with her over the years, a picture emerges of how she skillfully works the press.

Ms. Jolie expertly walks a line between known entity and complete mystery, cultivates relationships with friendly reporters and even sets up her own photo shoots for the paparazzi.

Most skillfully, she dictates terms to celebrity magazines involving their coverage of her and her family, editors say, creating an awkward situation for publications that try to abide by strict journalistic standards.

Ms. Jolie showed her skill at handling the news media in other negotiations. People magazine bid successfully for photos and an exclusive interview after she gave birth to her first child in 2006. Those pictures sold for an estimated $4.1 million, a sum that she and Mr. Pitt said they donated to charity.

In a separate 2006 negotiation with People, Ms. Jolie invited magazine editors — through her philanthropic adviser, Trevor Neilson — to bid on exclusive photos of her and her adopted Cambodian son, Maddox. But she made coverage of her charity work part of the deal.

“While Angelina and Brad understand the interest in their family, they also expect that the publications who purchase these photos will use them in a way that also draws attention to the needs of the Cambodian people,” Mr. Neilson wrote in a December 2006 memo to editors.

He went on to promise that Ms. Jolie would provide “exclusive quotes” to the publication that purchased the photos. “Publications are invited to comment on their editorial plans when submitting their bids,” Mr. Neilson wrote.

Time Inc. won the photos, paying an estimated $750,000. In the Jan. 8 issue of People came an article headlined “Angelina Jolie: Mission to Cambodia.” As in other instances, the company paid the money to the photography company, Getty Images, which took its fee and split the rest in payments to companies operated on behalf of Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt. Those companies in turn funneled the money to the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.

Mr. Neilson, the president of the Global Philanthropy Group and a former executive at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said, “She is used to sell magazines and newspapers, so part of why we wrote that memo is that we wanted to use the interest in her personal life to influence people to pay attention to important issues. If Angie can use the interest and redirect it, she wants to do that.”

The persona that Ms. Jolie projects on screen tends to be intimidating and physical. She is not the girl next door. She won a supporting actress Oscar in 2000 for “Girl, Interrupted,” in which she played a mental patient.

But more recently, she has emphasized her philanthropic work, and her growing family. Ms. Jolie, with Mr. Pitt, now has a clan of six. There are three adopted children — Maddox, Pax and Zahara — and three biological children: Shiloh and the twins, Knox and Vivienne.

But she cut a very different, wilder figure in Hollywood during her marriage to the actor Billy Bob Thornton. After their divorce in 2003, Us magazine asked Ms. Jolie if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. According to two people involved, she declined — but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. Ms. Jolie informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot.

The resulting photo, the origin of which was not made public to Us readers, presented Ms. Jolie in a new light — a young mother unsuccessfully trying to have a private moment with her son.

Shifting the focus is one of Ms. Jolie’s best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Mr. Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis — being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Mr. Pitt from his wife, Jennifer 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.

“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.

That is cynical nonsense, counters Mr. Neilson.

“People don’t realize the complexity of what Angie is doing,” he said. “A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media.”

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. Mr. Neilson said that filings run more than a year behind and that the foundation has additional commitments of about $5.6 million that that are being paid as the organizations receiving the funds structure their programs.

Among the grants are $2 million for an AIDS clinic in Ethiopia and $2.6 million to Make It Right, an organization devoted to rebuilding New Orleans, Mr. Neilson said. Smaller grants include $500,000 to groups focused on helping Iraqi schoolchildren.

The New York Times recently ran a feature article about Ms. Jolie; there were no restrictions on access.

Ms. Jolie’s attempts to lasso the media have occasionally backfired. In 2006, when she sought the privacy of Namibia to give birth to Shiloh, the government refused to grant visas to journalists unless they had written permission from the couple. Magazines complained harshly.

More recently, she insisted that journalists at the premiere of “A Mighty Heart,” a movie about the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, sign an agreement limiting their questions and the use of her answers. In part, the document stated: “The interview may only be used to promote the picture. In no event may interviewer or media outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story.”

And, “the interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”

Ms. Jolie blamed an overzealous lawyer for the demand at the time, saying he was “trying to protect me.”

Still, such blunders are rare, and Ms. Jolie’s Q score, a measurement of a star’s likability, has continued to increase. Around the time she won her Oscar, 13 percent of people surveyed viewed her positively, according to Marketing Evaluations Inc. The average rating for female stars is 18 percent.

Today, about 24 percent of respondents view Ms. Jolie positively.

bwhahahahaha
Jolie calls the paps to set up pictures!
I KEW IT!!!!!

I read this earlier and it really says nothing new. Its author, Barnes, is just trying to sensationalize it.

It wasn’t exactly a secret that Jolie & Pitt expected People to cover more serious topics such as refugees in exchange for access to them and the photos of the kids. That’s actually a very good idea.

I suppose it looks more important to say Time, Inc., the parent company, but it was, in fact, People Magazine. And why would anyone expect a negative slant in any article based on the photographs of any celebrity’s child. Those are ALWAYS puff pieces.

Barnes cites one incident (again with no source) from many years ago when Maddox was a baby where Jolie didn’t want to do articles for two of the tabs so she compromised and let their photogs know she’d be in a playground one time. It isn’t even comparable to Jennifer Garner who does this on a regular basis or Jennifer Aniston who also regularly does this to advertise her love life.

Barnes attributes amazing qualities to what must be even more of a super woman than the public already believes Ms. Jolie to be. He would have us believe that a woman who just gave birth, recovering from an operation, nursing her baby [babies] and being a mother to toddlers is involved in some nitty gritty high level negotiations for the babies’ photographs. As if there were any other half-way respectable choices with enough money to compete for the photo rights besides People and Hello. The decisions for both births must have taken all of two seconds. She really must be a Super Woman.

You’ll note that Barnes really has no sources who are willing to be named which makes them suspect in the first place. This isn’t exactly an expose of the mafia or government where you need to protect your identity to protect your life or job. Protection of sources providing frivolous information about a third party celebrity who can do nothing meaningful to the source is not what protecting your sources is about. It IS, however, what sloppy journalism is about. It is NOT the way an editor ensures that rumors and unfounded allegations do not drive a story. The NY Times is parroting tabloid news in this article. An article in the NY Times relying on Bonnie Fuller, of all people, for a truthful analysis is hysterical. They certainly make Angelina Jolie seem like one of the most powerful and important persons in the world.

Barnes also neglects to do much research in reporting on the full picture and level of both Ms. Jolie’s and Mr. Pitt’s philanthropic and humanitarian work. There is much he omits such as the enormous level of financial investment and other commitments Angelina has made in Cambodia and Vietnam and projects in Africa. He even misses the very large commitment, again both financially and personally, to the recently enacted (with Ms. Jolie’s help) U.S. legislation to provide legal assistance to refugee minors in the U.S. and the foundation she set up and funded to support its vital goals.

Perhaps the worst aspect of ths article is the unseemly and unfair insinuation that Ms. Jolie visits foreign countries merely to distract the public from her recent love life or the antics in her more youthful past. I can’t imagine that the fact that Ms. Jolie has been regularly toiling at these humanitarian endeavors and making large charitable contributions for many years before she even knew Mr. Pitt is unknown to the author [for instance in 2001 her one million dollar donation for refugees from the war in Afghanistan] .

In the end it’s a silly article that says very little but wants to imply a lot. The New York Times as tabloid journalism. My how times have changed.