Look, this girl obviously wants us to think she doesn't want attention and then runs her life to get as much attention as possible.
She went to the Ivy recently, which is basically like showing up at a photo shoot for Us Weekly, then acted all put out that the ten million photogs who camp out there all day long took her pic, then "ducked out" the back.
while i was reading this post and its comments, a story came on cnn about an 11-year-old boy who just died after a three-year battle with leukemia. his dying wish was to feed the homeless.
Boring, boring, boring. Never watched "Friends" but I can imagine, since she's the same in every movie. At least the ones I've seen. I so do not get the appeal. She's one of those people who's just famous for being famous. Plus she must have a good press agent.
Ahahahahahahahahaha!! I'm sorry...I tried to keep a straight face when I said that, but couldn't.
Still, it's so funny how the one star that doesn't have a press agent shilling for them and taking 15%, Jolie, gets attacked in the nyt for doing it better than the Deathstar ever could.
Aniston has bee n paying the Huvane bros 15% of her 100 million TV fortune for more than a decade now, and THIS is what she has to show for it? A reputation as a pathetic loser in love who can't move on??? REFUND, stat.
You care about this way too much. Out of curiosity, I checked your comments and was none too surprised to find that the only posts you ever comment on are Angelina/Jen posts. Speaking of pathetic...
What I find pathetic is that you actually care enough to have checked out who I post on. Me (over the course of 3 mos. or so) posting on Angelina or Jen Aniston is one thing, you being interested in ME, is the saddest sh-t I've ever encountered.
I just find it fascinating, honestly. With all of the things going on in the world (we are at war! we have a new pres! we're in a recession!) that Gawker posts about, this is the issue you find most worthy of attention and words. There are lots of Americans just like that; I happen to find it remarkable. And you can totes say the word 'shit' on here. Don't hold back!
I find Jennifer Aniston to be tremendously uninteresting now. I thought she was really cute about 12 or so years ago. She looked different, her facial features were more pronounced and she seemed to be above stuff like this.
In a way when I see her now, it's like she's an extension of the latter days of that Rachel Green character, and that's totally odd and boring.
She has had a lot of work done and seems obsessed with working out, dieting, and tanning. Those are technically things I dislike most about people. So, yea, not super into her.
I really hate when these celebrities are all "only take my picture when I SAY SO" - save for when they are with their kids...which Jennifer doesn't have.
@JinxyMcDeath: A-ha! Back when Friends was on I was pretty sure she had her top half "enhanced" from one season to the next. Same for Helen Hunt during Mad About You. These actresses were bustin' out all over, before our very eyes.
Ugh. Jennifer Aniston is the cultural equivalent of beige wallpaper. Unremarkable, boring, vanilla, inoffensive. Certainly not worth a moment's consideration. It's not even about "liking" or "disliking" her....she provokes no opinion one way or the other...she is beige wallpaper.
I for one can never get enough of ridiculously rich celebs bitching about people taking pictures, approaching them etc...in particular when said celebrity does everything possible to keep themselves in the public eye.
"So it is for 'Rules Girls,' as these cynically manipulative females are called in the current best seller, 'The Rules' (Warner Books), written by two predators who parlayed their tricks into what they suggest may be heaven on earth, marriage in the suburbs. The book's dust jacket tells us that the author Ellen Fein's broomstick landed in Long Island, while the other, Sherrie Schneider, made it to celestial New Jersey."
I used to like Jennifer Aniston, well, for what she was...a perky, likable, television person who made cutesy, likable, perky little fluff movies about the bobble-headed loves, and not overly taxing lives of single women. Were they Oscar worthy performances? No. But she was Rachel on a cutesy, perky sitcom so it was allowed.
Now, however, the menagerie of her personal life is such a huge turn off! We know way too much about who she is as a person, and let me just say that I liked dim-bulbed Rachel better! I think honestly, whether you love her or hate her, I think most of us would agree that she needs to go into private seclusion for awhile. This overexposure is not helping her. She looks high schoolish, and silly, and her inability to bounce back successfully from her divorce is torpedoing her career, and letting Jolie win. If it's really about winning.
11/24/08
11/23/08
Except instead of horse-face, it's nagging mule.
11/23/08
11/23/08
She went to the Ivy recently, which is basically like showing up at a photo shoot for Us Weekly, then acted all put out that the ten million photogs who camp out there all day long took her pic, then "ducked out" the back.
11/23/08
11/23/08
perspective, jen.
11/23/08
11/23/08
Ahahahahahahahahaha!! I'm sorry...I tried to keep a straight face when I said that, but couldn't.
Still, it's so funny how the one star that doesn't have a press agent shilling for them and taking 15%, Jolie, gets attacked in the nyt for doing it better than the Deathstar ever could.
Aniston has bee n paying the Huvane bros 15% of her 100 million TV fortune for more than a decade now, and THIS is what she has to show for it? A reputation as a pathetic loser in love who can't move on??? REFUND, stat.
11/23/08
You care about this way too much. Out of curiosity, I checked your comments and was none too surprised to find that the only posts you ever comment on are Angelina/Jen posts. Speaking of pathetic...
11/23/08
11/23/08
I just find it fascinating, honestly. With all of the things going on in the world (we are at war! we have a new pres! we're in a recession!) that Gawker posts about, this is the issue you find most worthy of attention and words. There are lots of Americans just like that; I happen to find it remarkable. And you can totes say the word 'shit' on here. Don't hold back!
11/23/08
In a way when I see her now, it's like she's an extension of the latter days of that Rachel Green character, and that's totally odd and boring.
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
I really hate when these celebrities are all "only take my picture when I SAY SO" - save for when they are with their kids...which Jennifer doesn't have.
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
11/23/08
-- Douglas Martin, NYT, 11/10/96
LOL - worth reading.
11/23/08
Jesus, those "Rules" women are creepy.
11/23/08
11/23/08
Isn't it scary??
11/23/08
11/23/08
Now, however, the menagerie of her personal life is such a huge turn off! We know way too much about who she is as a person, and let me just say that I liked dim-bulbed Rachel better! I think honestly, whether you love her or hate her, I think most of us would agree that she needs to go into private seclusion for awhile. This overexposure is not helping her. She looks high schoolish, and silly, and her inability to bounce back successfully from her divorce is torpedoing her career, and letting Jolie win. If it's really about winning.