# Angelina J.



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone else find it side-splittingly funny that she is holding herself ever so serious about journalistic freedoms, starring in the new movie about Daniel Pearl, yet apparently wanted to ban FNC from her premiere and also have all other interviewers sign very restrictive contracts prior to being allowed to interview her?

I find the whole thing very sad, yet very typical Hollywood liberal.



> Reporters were asked to agree to "not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave."
> 
> The agreement also required that "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. ... The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie."


at:

Of course, there is the whole set of allegations that her and Brad basically had all press expelled from a whole damn country prior to the birth of their child. Does anyone wonder how they can walk around with such a disconnect in their heads?


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

yes but this is the Angelina Jolie who used to wear a vial of her husbands blood around her neck,played with knives, exchanged spit with her brother in public ,I suspect there are a lot of skeletons in Ms.Jolies closet that have still to surface .You can only manipulate the media so long before they turn on you.

case in point paris Hilton and tragicly The princess of Wales.

It all comes out in the wash.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Brad Pitt chose poorly. JA over AJ in a landslide IMHO.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I'm with ksinc on this one. I'd take Jennifer Aniston over Angelina Jolie any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But on topic, no, I'm not longer surprised by hypocrisy.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I'm with ksinc on this one. I'd take Jennifer Aniston over Angelina Jolie any day of the week and twice on Sunday...


No way José!!! AJ is much finer, and I hear she's a real screamer :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Guys, the answer is clear: marry neither but have 'em both...at the same time if possible.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Brad Pitt chose poorly. JA over AJ in a landslide IMHO.


maybe personality wise...but as far as looks go??? c'maaan...c'maaaaaaan...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> No way José!!! AJ is much finer, and I hear she's a real screamer :icon_smile_big:
> 
> M8


aaah yes...but who would you take between Angelina and Paris???

now THAT would be a tough choice...


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> maybe personality wise...but as far as looks go??? c'maaan...c'maaaaaaan...


There's something creepy looking about Angelina Jolie. I can't quite put my finger on it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> maybe personality wise...but as far as looks go??? c'maaan...c'maaaaaaan...


On looks, I'd take JA too. I also prefer Nicky to Paris.

AJ looks like an alien life form IMHO.

I might have gone with Gia (was that the character in the movie?) 20 years ago.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> There's something creepy looking about Angelina Jolie. I can't quite put my finger on it.


Creepy is the word for it and it's Billy Bob Thornton! LOL


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> AJ looks like an alien life form IMHO.


LMAO...I love the line...but I'll have to add that (at least as far as I'm concerned) she's the sexiest alien I've ever seen...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> LMAO...I love the line...but I'll have to add that (at least as far as I'm concerned) she's the *skankiest* alien I've ever seen...


I have to agree. 

What would make you even want to touch that?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> What would make you even want to touch that?


ummmm...

yeah...I'm quite sure that given the opportunity I'd tear that apart...


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Guys, the answer is clear: marry neither but have 'em both...at the same time if possible.


Like they say, "two's company, but three's a blast!"



The Gabba Goul said:


> aaah yes...but who would you take between Angelina and Paris???
> 
> now THAT would be a tough choice...


AJ trumps PH any day of the week. AJ is much better looking and self-accomplished. AJ likes to travel to cool places like I do.

M8


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> AJ trumps PH any day of the week. AJ is much better looking and self-accomplished. AJ likes to travel to cool places like I do.
> 
> M8


I dunno...I mean Paris strikes me a a bit more of a freak...although I'm pretty sure Angelina is no stranger to the nuances of the horizontal mambo either...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

GG,

I am of the opinion that AJ is easy on the eyes but why did you choose to post what is perhaps the most unflattering picture of her I have every seen. She looks washed out and dare I say bloated in your picture. Try again.

And why I don't think you'll ever get the opportunity, if you did, I am quite sure AJ would tear you (or any man really) apart first.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Movies are a product no less than a plate of biscuits and pig gravy with coffee. If the waitress expects a tip good service includes a little personality. If Brad and Angelina can't take the heat they should get out of the Hollywood Kitchen.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> There's something creepy looking about Angelina Jolie. I can't quite put my finger on it.


It's because she's insane. (Also the answer to her wonderfully funny inconsistencies and other "bizarre" behavior)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> aaah yes...but who would you take between Angelina and Paris???
> 
> now THAT would be a tough choice...


Angelina anytime.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Brad Pitt chose poorly. JA over AJ in a landslide IMHO.


Ksinc, I tend to agree with you quite a bit of the time, but this is one time where we must part ways, if we are talking looks only. I did not hear a word Angelina said nor do I ever hear what she says, quite frankly, because I am mesmerized by her beauty.

Now, I do agree that leaving Jennifer for Angelina was a big mistake. How many times has Angelina been married now, totally, completely, madly in love (I mean she wore a guys blood in a vile around her neck!)? Jennifer, on the other hand, seemed to be truly in love with him, loyal to him, and also appears to have much more common sense, so I do think he should have stayed, not strayed. But then what do you expect when your job requires you to lay in bed next to beautiful women with very little clothes on and to, essentially, make out with them?

I cannot remember who said it, but what was said was something like this: If you take two of the best behaved of our youth, with the best of morals, and place them in a car late at night in a dark area overlooking the city lights, what do you think is going to happen? I think being an actor, likewise, is a recipe for disaster in marriage. If I saw another man kiss my wife it would be the last thing he ever did with those lips of his.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm willing to admit that I am able to appreciate her only for her looks which at one time I liked - back in the Gia days. However, I wouldn't touch it now. YMMV

JA has more of a girl next door thing going IMHO.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

.
*STD*
.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I'm willing to admit that I am able to appreciate her only for her looks which at one time I liked - back in the Gia days. However, I wouldn't touch it now. YMMV
> 
> JA has more of a girl next door thing going IMHO.


I agree Ksinc.I used to like Angelina when she starred in Gia but now she's more frail and wafer thin skinny.


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone else find it side-splittingly funny that she is holding herself ever so serious about journalistic freedoms, starring in the new movie about Daniel Pearl, yet apparently wanted to ban FNC from her premiere and also have all other interviewers sign very restrictive contracts prior to being allowed to interview her?
> 
> I find the whole thing very sad, yet very typical Hollywood liberal.
> 
> ...


All is excused because she's beautiful mate.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

The famous live in bubbles that are created by all the yes people that parasite off them. The more they reinforce the illogical behaviour of their hosts, the more they justify their position. Hypocrisy becomes the norm, unfortunately.
I'm afraid honesty gets you nowhere in the entertainment business, a professional conclusion it has taken me 25 years to fully appreciate 

AJ is definitely sexy, just wish she'd lose the tats.

I


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Imagine having to pretend to be listening to AJ - in the morning, with a headache, sour stomach and a long day's work ahead.

How long can lust trump the longing for an adult conversation?

(This might make a good movie.)


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-06/17/content_895974.htm

In this article,Angelina reveals her future family plans.


----------



## In medio stat virtus (Jan 3, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone else find it side-splittingly funny that she is holding herself ever so serious about journalistic freedoms, starring in the new movie about Daniel Pearl, yet apparently wanted to ban FNC from her premiere and also have all other interviewers sign very restrictive contracts prior to being allowed to interview her?


I think this is not contradictory. There is a world of difference between reporting war or human rights abuse and diffusing star gossips. Both activities are covered by the same 'journalism' label but they serve very different purposes and bring very different benefits to humanity.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

In medio stat virtus said:


> I think this is not contradictory. There is a world of difference between reporting war or human rights abuse and diffusing star gossips. Both activities are covered by the same 'journalism' label but they serve very different purposes and bring very different benefits to humanity.


Agreed, Angelina is making it clear that she is not "news" but rather gossip. If you wish to gab with her, you do it on her terms. Journalism doesn't come into play here.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Howard,

You have to be the only 33 year old Pathmark stock boy who reads chinadaily.com. But then again.......

Karl


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Howard,
> 
> You have to be the only 33 year old Pathmark stock boy who reads chinadaily.com. But then again.......
> 
> Karl


Why Carl,I just thought I'd post an article on Angelina Joile for all to read on here.What's the big deal?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In medio stat virtus said:


> I think this is not contradictory. There is a world of difference between reporting war or human rights abuse and diffusing star gossips. Both activities are covered by the same 'journalism' label but they serve very different purposes and bring very different benefits to humanity.


Censorship is censorship. You missed the important part of my sentence you quoted (of course); she tried to bare a particular media outlet, one antithetical to most of her viewpoints. Release of her movie *is* news. Can you imagine banning a whole news agency from the Cannes Festival?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Patrick06790 said:


> Imagine having to pretend to be listening to AJ - in the morning, with a headache, sour stomach and a long day's work ahead.
> 
> How long can lust trump the longing for an adult conversation?
> 
> (This might make a good movie.)


Imagine how Brad Pitt feels.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> LMAO...I love the line...but I'll have to add that (at least as far as I'm concerned) *she's the sexiest alien I've ever seen...*


I disagree. Milla Jovovich, in _The Fifth Element,_ is the sexiest alien I've ever seen.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Howard,
> 
> You have to be the only 33 year old Pathmark stock boy who reads chinadaily.com. But then again.......
> 
> Karl


Inventory Egress Non-motorized Transition Vehicle Recovery Logistics & Security.

"stock boy" is pejorative. Everyone ain't privileged to frown over numbers in a cubicle high above it all in some Ivory tower aerie.

Howard's free to inhale the Garden City bouquet.

Azure skies, capacious asphalt, chance to ponder the lurking, inscrutable Eastern Menace with their insatiable lust for 87 octane & LV.

Not to be hassled by "the man", 'til he graces these fori with his Solomonical insight.

Shame.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jamgood said:


> Inventory Egress Non-motorized Transition Vehicle Recovery Logistics & Security.
> 
> "stock boy" is pejorative. Everyone ain't privileged to frown over numbers in a cubicle high above it all in some Ivory tower aerie.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> *Censorship is censorship.* You missed the important part of my sentence you quoted (of course); she tried to bare a particular media outlet, one antithetical to most of her viewpoints. Release of her movie *is* news. Can you imagine banning a whole news agency from the Cannes Festival?


Yes, it is. I don't know what the term for what AJ did would be, but it isn't censorship is it?

How do we know this is wrong? I realize it upsets some people. Isn't it a market decision she's making - free enterprise?

The press is still free to write whatever they want about her. People often give an interview to Barbara Walters and not to every other station. It's not like AJ is the POTUS making the State of the Union speech which requires a 'pool camera'.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, it is. I don't know what the term for what AJ did would be, but it isn't censorship is it?
> 
> How do we know this is wrong? I realize it upsets some people. Isn't it a market decision she's making - free enterprise?
> 
> *The press is still free to write whatever they want about her.* People often give an interview to Barbara Walters and not to every other station. It's not like AJ is the POTUS making the State of the Union speech which requires a 'pool camera'.


Ah, now you are missing the other part...the proposed contract gave severe limitations as to what they could use the photos and/or interview material for.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Howard,
> 
> You have to be the only 33 year old Pathmark stock boy who reads chinadaily.com. But then again.......
> 
> Karl


LMAO...


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Howard,
> 
> You have to be the only 33 year old Pathmark stock boy who reads chinadaily.com. But then again.......
> 
> Karl


Had me wondering.....:icon_smile:

I


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jamgood said:


> Inventory Egress Non-motorized Transition Vehicle Recovery Logistics & Security.
> 
> "stock boy" is pejorative. Everyone ain't privileged to frown over numbers in a cubicle high above it all in some Ivory tower aerie.
> 
> ...


You're always the poet...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah, now you are missing the other part...the proposed contract gave severe limitations as to what they could use the photos and/or interview material for.


I'm not missing anything. Yes, that was in a contract. That is still not censorship.

Are NDAs censorship too?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm not missing anything. Yes, that was in a contract. That is still not censorship.
> 
> Are NDAs censorship too?


I guess our definitions are not quite the same then in regards to interviews.

NDAs are mixing apples and oranges. Good shot though.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I guess our definitions are not quite the same then in regards to interviews.
> 
> NDAs are mixing apples and oranges. Good shot though.


No, it's the same thing. A contractual obligation is the result of a negotiation. Censorship is the result of some authority -usually governmental; certainly not personal prerogative or personal property rights. Her image, her words, her opinion, her interview belong to her unless and until she sells them according to mutual agreement.

As I understand it she bid; they refused.

Thus continues to turn the free world capital markets.

Find something else to complain about. An ingrate she might be, a censor she is not. LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No it's the same thing. A contractual obligation is the result of a negotiation. Censorship is the result of some authority usually governmental; certainly not personal prerogative.
> 
> As I understand it she bid; they refused.
> 
> ...


Guess I've joined the other side with Karl....

ksinc, there is the denoted standard of censorship as you have defined above. I agree with it. I also will agree she is offering a "deal" to be interviewed. However, IMO, I find this "deal" rings hollow for someone championing a free press. You might not find it inconsistent, however, I do. Clearly, while not a governmental authority, AJ's motives are that of censoring who is allowed access to her "news worthiness" and what people can say with any material they obtain from the interviews. The intent is clear to me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Guess I've joined the other side with Karl....
> 
> ksinc, there is the denoted standard of censorship as you have defined above. I agree with it. I also will agree she is offering a "deal" to be interviewed. However, IMO, I find this "deal" rings hollow for someone championing a free press. You might not find it inconsistent, however, I do. Clearly, while not a governmental authority, AJ's motives are that of censoring who is allowed access to her "news worthiness" and what people can say with any material they obtain from the interviews. The intent is clear to me.


Yes, the P-Meister has turned 'pinko'.

Yes, as a matter of fact, so do I? So, does everyone else. Some just have a more arbitrary access list and some are more particular.

She is not controlling "the news" she's controlling her image, her words. That's called prerogative, not censorship. People do it all day, every day. You're doing it now by posting on this forum. You accepted certain 'rules' when you signed up about access and control to your words.

She's not making an editorial decision to exclude content, she's making an economic decision. I think it's a bad one, but it is hers to make just like every other person.

Think of it this way: she's offering something in return for accepting her rules.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, the P-Meister has turned 'pinko'.
> 
> Yes, as a matter of fact, so do I? So, does everyone else. Some just have a more arbitrary access list and some are more particular.
> 
> ...


Person A gets media attention for wasteful government spending. It turns out Person A has gone bankrupt twice due to consumer debt and is on the verge of it again. I find while what Person A might have to say about the government's spending is true, I find Person A hypocritical...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Person A gets media attention for wasteful government spending. It turns out Person A has gone bankrupt twice due to consumer debt and is on the verge of it again. I find while what Person A might have to say about the government's spending is true, I find Person A hypocritical...


So, what if ...

She was posing naked for Playboy (who met her terms). Should Penthouse also get copies to print for free? Or; do both her and Playboy have the exclusive, negotiated right to control access to her image?

I'm sorry, Way, but you're just totally wrong to say "censor". Hypocrit? Well, gee golly, I'm shocked!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, what if ...
> 
> She was posing naked for Playboy (who met her terms). Should Penthouse also get copies to print for free?


Keep in mind we're dealing specifically with the hype around her new movie and its opening night....

And I think I would prefer more of a Hustler spread on her....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Keep in mind we're dealing specifically with the hype around her new movie and its opening night....
> 
> And I think I would prefer more of a Hustler spread on her....


ANSWER THE QUESTION, FRANK! 

LMAO

She is not censoring the hype around her movie. You are allowed to go see it and print whatever you like about it. She lacks the authority and means to censor the hype.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> ANSWER THE QUESTION, FRANK!
> 
> LMAO


And now you really insult me!

Again, not apples to apples. The nude poses are not information per se, but the fact she is posing nude is. So if she tried to prevent FNC from reporting that she had posed nude, I would have a problem. Or if she tried to stop Penthouse from reporting on the fact she posed nude. However, the nude shots themselves are not "the story".

So no, Penthouse does not get a free copy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> And now you really insult me!
> 
> Again, not apples to apples. The nude poses are not information per se, but the fact she is posing nude is. So if she tried to prevent FNC from reporting that she had posed nude, I would have a problem. Or if she tried to stop Penthouse from reporting on the fact she posed nude. However, the nude shots themselves are not "the story".
> 
> So no, Penthouse does not get a free copy.


I apologize, but desperate measures were required! 

Re: your analogy, she is not trying to prevent Fox News from reporting she made a movie.

Re: my analogy, her poses are property, like her movie and her interview. Don't you have to pay to see the movie? It is a product as, is she. She has the right to negotiate access and distribution to herself.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

She wanted to bare FNC from watching her walk up the red carpet. Hard to justify given the context. If you do not see any hypocrisy in that, so be it. I do.

I do not accept your apology, that is going to take a nice Sam Hober tie....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> She wanted to bare FNC from watching her walk up the red carpet. Hard to justify given the context. * If you do not see any hypocrisy in that, so be it. I do*.





Wayfarer said:


> Censorship is censorship.


I didn't say I didn't see any hypocrisy in that, I said I saw no censorship in that.

As to hypocrisy, I repeat "I'm shocked!"

I rest my case.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I already stipulated you were correct, she is not a government authority and if that is part of the defintion of "censhorship", I was in the wrong. However, both her intents and actions mirror those of censors the world over. Next time I shall run my word choice through you so you can censor it :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Keep in mind we're dealing specifically with the hype around her new movie and its opening night....
> 
> And I think I would prefer more of a Hustler spread on her....


Me Too Wayfar...Me Too.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone else find it side-splittingly funny that she is holding herself ever so serious about journalistic freedoms, starring in the new movie about Daniel Pearl, yet apparently wanted to ban FNC from her premiere and also have all other interviewers sign very restrictive contracts prior to being allowed to interview her?
> 
> I find the whole thing very sad, yet very typical Hollywood liberal.
> 
> ...


She is part of the growing group of people who believe in total freedom of the press as long as they write what they are told to, do not ask any hard questions and do not dare think for themselves. Shut up and print!

Pretty straight forward actually.

The CDN PM, His royal Harperness, is cut from the same cloth.
Write what I say or I'll punish you forever!! Modern day, western world version of Stalin.

I have met AJ.
Trust me when I say I would take the pre turmoil effected JA any day of the week!! I would take a quiet walk on the beach with JA before a roll with AJ!


----------



## Benjamin.65 (Nov 1, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I disagree. Milla Jovovich, in _The Fifth Element,_ is the sexiest alien I've ever seen.


I hear she fancies ripping a nice bong hit every morning. You can tell from her eyes. Good on her.


----------

