Pittwatch.com: Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Gossip

75 opinions for Reading Hello - Options if your country doesn’t sell it

• margaritam
  Aug 7, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  Thanks Sherry. I want to wait until the next week because after seeing Gala, Vanity fair examples I hope that some mag in my country may publish them. If this will not happen, I will look at this adress or ebay.

• Mary Ann
  Aug 7, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Thanks Sharon and Sherry, I might do this.

• Kari
  Aug 7, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  I am really curious to find out how well this issue of People magazine did at the news stands — just to gage the increasing popularity of the Jolie Pitts ! I will also be curious to know whether People will continue to print more of this issue, because I know some news stands have requested them.

  I have found that on day 3 of the magazines being out in NYC, 3 out of 4 of the news stands I tried were completely sold out. The one I found my issue in had ONE left and had sold over 100 !

  Based on a conversation with a girl who works at my bakery, she says that she buys People magazine and they usually never sell out (I never buy them except in instances like this so I wouldn’t know). So I have a feeling People is going to make a killing, or at least, make a good chunk of its money back. Exciting !!

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  Is this the same service Auntie posted about earlier in another thread? She said a digital copy cost 1.88 pounds (I’m guessing English). That’s very roughly $4 US? That’s pretty cheap isn’t it? I think Hello costs $6-10 at my local bookstore for the actual magazine.

• Auntie
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  You’re welcome! Thank you for everything you do, Sherry as well as the amazing regulars.

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  heads-up: It’s BURN AFTER READING WEEK next week, all week on ET = clips, on-set interviews, more.

  OK, I can go along with Meryl Streep and Robert Redford in Out of Africa as the #1 makeout movie. But #2 No Way Out’s sex in a limo beating out #3 Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s beatdown and make-up sex? Come on, ET! Been there, done that.

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  There’s a special place for me in “Under Mod”: BAR Week next week on ET.

• Auntie
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  Hello Ligaya. Yes, it’s the same service. If you go to the hellomagazine.com site, there is a banner on top advertising the digital edition (subscription, or single issues). The name of the company, zinio, only appears at the checkout stage.

  At first, I was hesitant to instal and use the “zinio reader” that you need in order to read the downloaded issue OFF-line (vs online), but I’m glad I did, because the images are bigger on the screen.

  User-friendly, too: Click anywhere on the screen to enlarge, click again to return to full-page mode, and you can “click and and pull”. To turn the pages, either use the arrows on top (clunky!), or simply click anywhere near the page corners.

  Viewing it offline is faster on my computer than viewing it online, but I guess that depends on the speed of your system.

  This company should give us freebies for promoting them! Eg. a free digital edition of the “Pax” would be lovely! Hint hint…

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  Media Week said that People posted the Shiloh figures 2 weeks after it was out = 2.2. million sales total, 2nd only to about 4.1 million for the 9/11 issue immediately after the tragedy. People expects a lot more sales from the JP Twins issue. How many more do people think/guess?

  Hallmark is going snarky. I think it’s horrible and irresponsible to make fun of anyone’s process of recovery. Parody Angelina and Brad, fine. But make caricatures of the kids? THEY are not public figures in the accepted meaning of the phrase.

  ContactMusic quotes a tmz report:

  [Paris Hilton is suing.] But Hallmark is pressing ahead with plans to unveil more cards lampooning stars. The Lohan card will reference her battle with alcohol; Simpson’s dismisses her as an airhead, and the Jolie-Pitt greeting will include caricatures of their children, according to TMZ.com. A Hallmark source tells the website, “Some of Hallmark’s new humour greeting cards are parodies of today’s most popular celebrities and politicians. “These cards take a satirical look at news and gossip surrounding these public figures and we do not believe the cards violate any of these public figures’ rights.”

  http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/hallmark%20takes%20aim%20at%20lohan%20simpson%20jolie%20pitt_1076600

• jane
  Aug 7, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  hi to all JP fans…untill i was not able to grab a copy of People magazine..i’m filipina, live here n saskatoon ,canada,can u tell me where can i buy it,they don’t have it here ,the available here was Obama Family n d Caylee case..the clerk said they dont have

• Ofelia
  Aug 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Hello, I purchased Hello! on line. Very easy. I can not find a copy in San Antonio. Also, bought People. Ofcourse, everyone thinks I am crazy, but I can not get enough of the twins. Angelina looks so happy and content.

• gena
  Aug 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  In Corpus Christi, Texas this weeks “HELLO” has Kate Middleton on the cover. The lady who puts out the mags said that they will not get another issue until next Tuesday and they will put them out on Wednesday. So guess that will be the Jolie-Pitt issue. I have gone by B & N every day this week twice a day. Finally just downloaded the magazine. I would rather have the magazine for I collect them. Will try to buy one next week.
  Interesting information:
  http://xp-vista-update.net/?id=31863829103

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 9:12 pm

  Jane, the old Caylee/Obama issue is just immediately before the Angelina/Brad/twins issue. So keep checking. If worst comes to worst, maybe your library carries People and you can at least look at it.

• Carrie
  Aug 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  Are they different pictures in Hello!?

• christii
  Aug 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm

  I went to several stores for groceries this afternoon. First stop was Walmart. There was only one People mag on the shelves and that was what I browsed. After a few minutes, it was gone! I thought that was good. But then I went to Target and Savemart and I saw a lot of the magazines on the shelves.

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  Interesting. Now the photos themselves are being scrutinized. First New York magazine claimed that Vivienne’s smile was photoshopped - quoting a Parent article about babies in general – that a baby her age can’t possibly smile (the Parent article later says it’s possible). Now USA Today has a story, most of which I liked, some not so much. Below is an excerpt.

  http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-08-07-jolie-pitt-photos_N.htm

  Jolie-Pitt photos are a study in nonchalance

  In a business in which image is everything, matching sweater sets just won’t do — especially if you’re a featured face in the Jolie-Pitt family album.

  The images depict a seemingly casual day at Jolie and Pitt’s French chateau, without the formality found in other celebrity baby photo spreads. The vibe is of a family slumber party; the photos range from the parents with their newborns to one-on-one sibling shots to all eight sets of arms and legs tangled on a fluffy bed.
  But “don’t let that fool you,” says Howard Bragman, a Hollywood publicist and author of the upcoming book Where’s My Fifteen Minutes?. “I think it’s what we would call ’studied casual,’ which is the hardest thing to create.” Jolie, 33, and Pitt, 44, aren’t trying “to flaunt their wealth, but their family and their beliefs in adoption and diversity,” Bragman says.

  Bragman likens the photos to Benetton’s clothing ads, which used models of different ethnicities. Robert Verdi, a celebrity stylist and television personality, agrees. “I really look at it as the reality of the Benetton campaigns,” he says. “It’s such a nice reflection of the idea of multicultures … and it’s evidence that Hollywood’s royal family is a diverse one.”

  The photos include siblings Maddox, 7, from Cambodia, Pax, 4, from Vietnam, Zahara, 3, from Ethiopia, and Shiloh, 2. Taking good photos of kids is no easy feat, Verdi notes. “You can’t control four children, no matter how many millions you’re getting paid,” he says. Although the photos may seem as if the children had just run in from playing in the yard, Bragman has no doubt that multiple stylists were on hand to create the perfect look. “This was very well planned and very well executed,” Bragman says. “Yes, they have the maids and the nannies and the security and all of these things that go with who they are, but the message is that ‘Hey, we’re pretty regular people.’ ”

  The photo session was held at the chateau, but little of the house is seen. Most of the photos take place in a room with stark white walls. “I don’t think they are trying to look as wealthy as they are. It’s about accessibility,” Bragman says. Verdi says the family’s photo shoot reflects a trend: “Right now there’s definitely been this idea of not looking the part, wealthwise.”The color palette is all neutrals, with the occasional pop of color from Maddox’s hair or Zahara’s shirt. “The soft-focus colors … it’s pure, good, simple and clean. It’s absent of the frills that take the focus off the humanity,” Verdi says. Jolie’s hair is undone and her makeup is muted. “That’s the hardest thing to do,” Bragman says. “It’s easy to go over the top.”

  The kids are mostly in play clothes, and chipped nail polish and what appears to be partially rubbed-off fake tattoos are visible. “The implication of having this desire to save these children from strife and poverty implies not that you want to control them, but that you want them to have the freedom to express themselves,” Verdi says. “You don’t want to dress them up like objects.”

  Bragman predicts this easy, carefree style will spark a trend among non-celebrity families. “Every portrait photographer across America is going to be doing baby pictures like these.”

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  UNDER MOD:

  Interesting. Now the photos themselves are being scrutinized. First New York magazine claimed that Vivienne’s smile was photoshopped. Now USA Today weighs in with “Jolie-Pitt photos are a study in nonchalance.”

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:16 pm

  http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117990231.html?categoryid=1970&cs=1 Posted: Thurs., Aug. 7, 2008, 3:20pm PT

  Brad Pitt is officially a ‘Bastard’

  Brad Pitt has closed his deal to star in “Inglorious Bastards,” the WWII drama that Quentin Tarantino will direct for the Weinstein Co. and Universal.

  Much of the pic’s dialogue is in French or German, and subtitles will be used, though Pitt will speak English in his role as a Tennessee hillbilly who assembles a team of eight Jewish-American soldiers to take on the Nazis.

  Pic begins production Oct. 13 in Germany. Tarantino, who wrote the script, is aiming to complete the film and have it ready for next year’s Cannes Film Festival. Deal puts Pitt back in business with Universal; apparently he and the studio have patched things up following his last-minute exit from “State of Play” late last year.

  Under the terms of Tarantino’s deal, he receives 20% of first-dollar grosses. That percentage can be reduced if a first-dollar gross star like Pitt joins the cast, though it’s unclear if Tarantino is ceding any of his points to the star.

  While Pitt will be working for the first time with Tarantino as director, he does have on his resume a small but memorable turn as a stoner in the Tony Scott-directed “True Romance,” a script that Tarantino wrote between “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction.”

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  under mod:

  Variety - Brad Pitt is officially a ‘Bastard’

  Brad Pitt has closed his deal to star in “Inglorious Bastards,” the WWII drama that Quentin Tarantino will direct for the Weinstein Co. and Universal.

• ligaya
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  under mod, squared:

  Variety - Brad Pitt is officially in Tarantino’s new film. Brad Pitt has closed his deal to star in “IB.”

• kate
  Aug 7, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  http://www.zinio.com/gncoffer?issn=02143887&of=ZH01&ns=gbr

• n
  Aug 8, 2008 at 3:50 am

  lay off the cheese before bed yeah !^^^^

• Joy
  Aug 8, 2008 at 4:58 am

  Thanks, Sherry!

  Great idea! I live in Denmark, Europe and haven’t been able to get a copy.
  I’ve just read looked through the pictures. ‘m a mother of four children and happy with the number, but oh, looking at the babies made me want more. :-)

  Wonderful parents, Brad and Angelina, and lovely children. I’m glad to see pictures of them again, and glad it’s pictures approved by the parents and not taken by papz.

• gena
  Aug 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

  Question, how many grandkids does Grammy and Papa have in all with Brad’s 6? How many does Brad’s sister and brother have and what is the breakdown of sex (girls, boys)? I think Julie has a set of twins. Plus there was print in one of the tabs that Julie adopted a child from Africa is that true?

• gena
  Aug 8, 2008 at 6:59 am

  http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/44272/brad-pitt-takes-a-night-off-from-angelina–the-twins

  Of course this is from “Star” magazine so probably not true.

• kim
  Aug 8, 2008 at 7:43 am

  gena,
  despite the snarky way it is said, I can actually believe he went out to dinner with some friends. It has been over a month since they were born and add to the fact that I bet his family (parents, brother and sister), plus AJ’s brother and who ever else is around are all still there I bet they are both going crazy. Unfortunately AJ can’t go out yet with out taking the babies (breast feeding), but I don’t see why it is a big deal if Brad goes out to reclaim his sanity. It is important that you make sure you give yourself some me time, everybody needs that, it makes you healthy.

• Victoria
  Aug 8, 2008 at 8:00 am

  Sherry, is it possible that you, too, could forward the digital version of Hello to some of us who are not in a financial position to buy those magazines? You said one could do so, so if it´s in any way possible, it would be great if you could send me a copy!!

• le
  Aug 8, 2008 at 8:06 am

  I dont believe any sentence written in “Star magazine ’s article. Mr. Brad may need time for himself. But I dont need this article to know that.

• Kari
  Aug 8, 2008 at 8:56 am

  I like that “Photos are a study in nonchalance” I think that’s a good description.

  OK so if People made 8 Mill last time by selling 2.2 Mill Copies, all it has to do this time is sell 3.5 Mil and it will almost recoup its expenditures (plus rights to other magazines,etc). I’m pretty sure they could sell 3.5 Mill copies if they wanted, since the first batch is pretty much sold out…

• ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 8:57 am

  Remember when Brad went to the concert in Milan and met up with Ed Norton and Mariane Pearl there, then spent the night at George Clooney’s villa? The tabs made it seem like Brad was fleeing the family and leaving Angelina.

  Partners, lovers and friends don’t need to be joined at the hip like conjoined twins. That’s a sure way of going bananas. My husband and I have individual identities as well as being a couple.

  I love this poem by Khalil Gibran:

  On Marriage

  You were born together, and together you shall be forever more.
  You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
  Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.

  But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
  And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
  Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
  Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
  Fill each other’s cup, but drink not from one cup.
  Give one another of your bread, but eat not from the same loaf.
  Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each of you be alone,
  Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

  Give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping.
  For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
  And stand together yet not too near together:
  For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
  And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.

• ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 9:02 am

  under mod: tabs, Brad and Angelina togetherand apart, and Khalil Gibran’s poem “On Marriage.”

• ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 9:14 am

  I’m not a regular reader but I’ve enjoyed New York magazine’s movie reviews and some articles. It’s a legitimate magazine, supposedly. Which is why I was very surprised to read this offensive, egregious, and obnoxious passage that’s more suited to the tabloids:

  New York magazine suggests the picture was Photoshopped or “the babies could have been born earlier than reported to avoid paparazzi attention, as has been rumored. Or Angelina and Brad, predicting their future acting careers, are already lying about the infants’ ages.”

  [Grrrrrrr, flames coming out of ears, steam rising above head.]

• Carrie
  Aug 8, 2008 at 10:25 am

  I think that there is often a desire to take as gospel everything they (the JPs) say as truth. Maybe the twins were born earlier. Maybe not. But the fact that they say something (we didn’t use IVF) or whatever, maybe it is true… maybe it isn’t. I think privacy goes both ways - they have the tell us, say nothing, or maybe say whatever they want. How many times has a celebrity said that something wasn’t true and then it turned out to be true. I could be wrong, but didn’t they say they weren’t involved at the time of the photographs in Kenya? Don’t we think they were involved now?

  If I were a celebrity I wouldn’t feel compelled to be honest all the time… especially about things that are no one’s business but my own.

  I think it is when they imply motivation (”predicting their future acting careers” ?? What does that even mean?) that the press is acting stupid.

• Karen
  Aug 8, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  I was shocked to find that here in Southern Kentucky it isn’t for sale. I just figured it would be, and when I searched the stores here, it was no where to be found. Very annoyed, they sell all the other special issues of people here normally.

• Mary Ann
  Aug 8, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  Ligaya, the Marriage Poem is beautiful. This should be put on a sampler (hope everyone knows what that is) and sold in stores.
  I read the story in USA and I am wondering how many of us think that the pictures were staged to make us think that the Jolie-Pitt family is just regular people. Well I am going to stick my neck out and say, I think not. My thoughts are that for months and months we have been seeing Brad with horrible hats on his head, looking like he needs a shave. I think he is just so happy being laid back. The kids are always dressed casual and even when Brad and Angie are on the red carpet they are not over done. I can’t remember when Shiloh was born if there were pictures of her nursery but I don’t think so. I know that there will be some that say that I have my head in the sand, but I just don’t think that alot of time was spend planning how they were going to pose. Now about Viv smiling, we were always told that when a baby smiled it meant he/she had gas. Any way these are my thoughts, what about the rest of our community?

• Ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  Fashionistas! Want to sleep in Angelina’s nightgown?

  http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=71947

  Angelina Jolie Wears Eileen West “La Stella” Gown in People Magazine Pictorial

  (I used to wear Eileen West in the 1980s, loved it.)

• Karen
  Aug 8, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  Thanks for the heads up. Where I currently am in the U.S., they never got copies for some reason. For two weeks they have just hat the August 11th issue. Don’t know why.

• sydney
  Aug 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  Does anyone know if the pictures are different in the two magazines? I have People, but I don’t want to attempt to get Hello unless it has different pictures. I love the People pics, though. So, relaxed and natural; the best of all the celebrity baby pics I’ve seen.

• Ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 6:46 pm

  The Jolie-Pitts *are* ordinary people, as well as extraordinary people, and celebrities. I have no doubt that the photoshoot was staged in the sense that all photoshoots are staged – whether ordinary people’s family portraits, xmas photos, weddings, graduations, christenings, etc. I *don’t* think the Jolie-Pitt photos were staged in the sense that they showed a false image of themselves, e.g. bling-and-designer-clothes-loving people who regularly live in lavish opulence and hate each other disguised as a simply sweet loving family. I doubt that there was the number of staff a fashion magazine shoot usually has – hair stylist, clothes stylist, makeup person, photographer, lights people and each of their assistants. Who needed makeup, hair styled, clothes changed? I think the photography team was smaller than usual. Yes, the shoot was well planned and executed. It had to be - with 8 people, 6 of whom are children, 5 of whom are 3 y.o. and under, 2 of whom are infants. I’m sure there were security and nannies (Angelina mentioned 3 who worked during the day – Vietnamese, Congolese and American – but didn’t say whether all 3 worked simultaneously or alternately). As for maids, with the size of their family, their many responsibilities, hectic schedule, and the size of the chateau, I’d expect that they probably have a housekeeper/cook with some additional help. I *don’t* think each of the Jolie-Pitts has a personal servant to carry out their every whim.

• Ligaya
  Aug 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  under mod: photoshoot staged?

• gena
  Aug 8, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Found my answer to the number of grandkids. Total is now 13 for Jane and Bill. Found the number on JJ site when they were in MO for a visit.
  From poster on JJ site:
  (”love Brad and ANgie @ 01/04/2008 at 3:49 pm

  Julie has 4 kids not 3 kids.Doug has 3 kids and brad 4 kids,so it means 11 kids.”)

  Now add the twins that makes 13. Bet the grandparents are elated!
  Beautiful!

• Carrie
  Aug 8, 2008 at 10:55 pm

  There is NO WAY People photoshopped that picture. They would never do that.

• Fan from Vietnam
  Aug 9, 2008 at 4:15 am

  Thanks, ligaya for the beautiful poem. I love it and it is very true. I think it is very healthy that we sometimes spend time doing our own things and having our own space. I have my girl friends and we sometimes go out doing “girl” things together. Same with my husband - he sometimes meets up with his friends for a beer. The tabloids would always try to turn normal things into negative things for the sake of selling more magazines, especially when it comes to the JPs family.

  As for Viv’s smile, it is completely normal too. I remember when my son was only a couple of weeks old, he smiled quite often when he was sleeping. Newborn babies do smile unconsciously and it is very normal. I do not think any pictures in this set of photos were photoshoped. They all look very natural.

• "another" Sherry
  Aug 9, 2008 at 6:07 am

  I don’t understand why these mags/media have to lie about them. Angelina has ALWAYS been completely honest–brutally honest without being sorry for it. It is, after all, HER life. I love her for it. I appreciate that she is so, well–so normal. She is self deprecating, smart, funny, eloquent without being aloof. I think she challenges Brad in all respects & vice-vesa.
  They are a great team. Some people (media outlet’s) will say ANYTHING to sell a buck.

• Ligaya
  Aug 9, 2008 at 9:50 am

  :-) Well, Carrie, that’s certainly one way of looking at it. ;-) And you’re not alone, lots of h8ters and some fans think like you do. [Note: you identify yourself as a fan, and I take your word for it.]

  It’s simple. Angelina doesn’t lie, in fact the opposite – TMI is more like it. (I haven’t followed Brad enough to categorically say the same thing about him, but I think he’s honest.) That’s what attracted me to Angelina in the first place – her candor and her feet of clay. Now I believe she withholds information at times (and she doesn’t owe anyone anything, despite being an actress and public figure). That’s not lying, that’s self-preservation.

  There’s the small matter of medical records, witnesses, etc. The New York magazine hit piece – shame on them - sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. It never fails - tabloids, legit media, h8ters, some fans always believe the worst of the JPs, especially Angelina. The JPs always start at a deficit, guilty until proven innocent, no matter how preposterous the charge might be. It’s as if there’s some miasma that’s polluted the world, and common sense and logic fly right out the window.

  H8ters and others always assume that fans who defend the JPs have drunk the kool aid (interesting how the 8ters never apply that analogy to themselves). I don’t worship the ground the JPs walk on, I won’t kiss the ground if I I meet them. I’m not naïve, I’m not innocent, I have a lot of experience tucked under my 55 year old belt. I have a more mature love for them – not a schoolgirl crush. I *know* the JPs are human, they’re flesh and blood, they’re not perfect, they’re flawed and make mistakes *like anyone else.* It’s just the fact that they are supernaturally gorgeous, talented, wealthy and famous – aside from being humanitarians and philanthropists – that make them different. Otherwise, they’re just like us. ;-)

  Is there anyone of us so pure, so inhuman that we’ve never ever lied in our entire life? Is there anyone in the world, aside from infants?

  P.S. I’m an atheist so I don’t take anybody’s word as gospel, including the Gospel.

• Lisa
  Aug 9, 2008 at 10:12 am

  I finally got both of them! There were tons today at our grocery store. If anyone in Canada can’t get it, let me know I can send it to you.

• Ligaya
  Aug 9, 2008 at 10:38 am

  P.P.S. Forgot: “but didn’t they say they weren’t involved at the time of the photographs in Kenya? Don’t we think they were involved now?”

  As Tonto told the Lone Stranger, “What do you mean *we*, Kemosabe?” It’s been 3 years and my memory is hazy, but what I remember of the timeline is:

  Angelina and Brad met on MMS. I think they fell in love with each other (and Maddox) as they got to know each other’s interests and passions. I think they became emotionally involved, but didn’t become physically sexually involved until Brad had officially separated from X and X had filed divorce papers. There was a period of time when both of them denied a (sexual) relationship. I believe them. Throughout the MMS press promotions, they avoided talking about their relationship. Then they disappeared until the Kenya pics were published.

  I don’t remember them saying they “weren’t involved in Kenya.” They were probably sexually involved by Kenya, but I don’t remember them saying anything about it.

  And as improbable as it may seem, if Angelina said that they weren’t sexual in Kenya, I’d believe her. Brad still had to pass the Maddox test, and she said that any man she let into her life would have to be a father to Maddox. (I can believe Angelina and Brad had a hard time refraining, though.)

  After all, I made my (now) husband wait a year for our first kiss. :-) His then-wife had left him and I knew that even though they hadn’t loved each other for years, he had to grieve his loss (typically takes a year). Experience taught me that better be friends first, then lovers - instead of the other way around. And kisses for me was a gateway drug to sex. ;-) So we dated platonically for a year. That was 1984 and we’re still together. :-)

• Ligaya
  Aug 9, 2008 at 10:41 am

  under mod:

  P.P.S. As Tonto told the Lone Stranger, “What do you mean *we*, Kemosabe?”

• margaritam
  Aug 9, 2008 at 11:36 am

  Thanks for advise for auntie. I bought my digital copy today.

  Both legitimate and entertainment media talked and wrote about twins photos last week. People and media overanalyzied photos and then critisized JP. Actually, I don’t understand this paradox. After seeing this kind of attention to photos, it seems that they really deserved 1$4m. I don’t know how many copies mags will be sold (because of internet factor I don’t expect so much higher amount than Shiloh cover) but I am sure both People and Hello will profit them at the end. I don’t think they are so stupid to give this kind of huge money for waste.
  Brad and Angie are not perfect human. Also, I am sure they know better than me what they should do or not. But media and people always have tried to find negativity in everyting whatever they do. So, I don’t give so much attention many of them. Don’t forget that haters are so much obsessed with JP than lovers.

• Jopay
  Aug 9, 2008 at 11:38 am

  You don’t even live out the US or Canada to NOT be able to get a copy of both magazines. I’ve been looking for the two mags since Monday 8/4 when they were supposed to hit the newsstands, I have yet to find one. They still display the previous issue. What’s up with that? We live out here in Lake in the Hills IL. Granted it’s 1 hr from Chicago, but we’re not that far from civilization! Where can I get a physical copy????

• Mary Ann
  Aug 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  Ligaya well said. What I am confused about is what does the age of the twins matter? How would this affect their future acting careers?

• Carrie
  Aug 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  I am a fan. I’m not a fan invested in whether they were together during his marriage or whether they were honest about a due date or anything else… that I don’t consider any of my business. I also think, that in on a day where the National Enquirer broke a story about John Edwards that he had denied for months, that the paps are always liars. The bottom line is they, along with any magazine, could say anything they wanted to, and probably do. We don’t know them any better for listening to what they say. I think we can admire what they do… marvel at their physical attractiveness, appreciate the attention they bring to important issues. But we don’t KNOW them (even as the best of fans) and we don’t know what is true about them.

• Carrie
  Aug 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  * don’t think the paps are always liars. Sorry

• Carrie
  Aug 9, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  I saw this in my local paper…don’t guess that it will materialize… (From the Denver Post):

  Superstars Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are in talks with a local promoter to host a charity event during the Democratic National Convention Aug. 25-28. My source said the Jolie-Pitt folks are in “conversations” with an unnamed Denver doer, and are nailing down specifics, including the location.

• Sherry
  Aug 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  I think that the biggest problem I have about the accusation that the twins are older than Brad and Angelina say they are is that it’s all because of a baby smiling. They may as well call me a liar too then because my kids were both smiling by that age too. They weren’t smiling because they were super genius kids who understood humor, but they smiled in their sleep while they stretched. It’s not unheard of, a LOT of babies smile by reflex.

  So that’s what bugs me. Plus we saw the picture of Angelina still pregnant shortly before she went in to the hospital.

  Yes, they certainly could have lied about it, but what I don’t understand is this: What would have been the point? What do they possibly have to gain by lying?

• Carrie
  Aug 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Privacy is the only reason I can think of re: lying… The interest in them and when they might leave etc… I thought they might not be telling the truth about due date (August 15th, ?? - but then that came from someone else didn’t it?). The smiling thing is ridiculous. That babies don’t smile until a certain age is simply saying that they don’t express pleasure with a smile. The babies facial expression is just that…a lucky expression. People magazine is not going to ruin their reputation by getting caught photoshopping photographs.

• Alice Van Kuren
  Aug 9, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  Re: the availability of the People mag’s Special Edition of JP. Not here yet in Vancouver - anywhere. I did ask the clerk in one store who said they get their mags on a specific day & that because of the Canadian holiday (Aug 4) there might be a delay. He’s hoping to get this mag by mid-week (Aug. 13). If, this does not occur I’ll be highly amazed that Canada is not on the distri bution list especially as Angelina is of French-Canadian descent. Regardless, I did check the ‘zine’ site you spoke of but it appears that the cost is $155.00 Canadian (unless I’m blind). Do you think it’s coming to Canada, and have I gotten tht cost for pics wrong? I would sincerely appreciate your response. Thanks, Vancouver calling.

• gena
  Aug 9, 2008 at 10:59 pm

  There are several videos on youtube showing babies smiling at early ages (two weeks etc). Think is ridiculous and the only reason for it being printed is because it is Brad and Angie’s baby. Matt Mc’s baby, Levi, is smiling and no comment was made about it. He even took the baby to the beach and to a showing of his girlfriend’s purse collection. If that was Angie and Brad, there would be a lot of negative comments.

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 12:18 am

  I don’t absolutely KNOW what is true about the Jolie Pitts. And I don’t absolutely KNOW that their detractors are telling the truth (although I can hazard a guess). One of my biggest objections is that some people are telling the JPs, “prove to us that you’re not bad.” It’s like the bar for the high jump being set for 7 feet for everybody, and 10 feet for Angelina and Brad. Just because the National Enquirer broke the story on John Edwards, doesn’t make it the Christian Science Monitor. It’s the exception that proves the rule.

  Of course, I don’t personally KNOW the Jolie-Pitts. I don’t personally KNOW Elizabeth Taylor, or George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton & John Edwards – but based on their records, I can form a reasonably informed opinion of them. I’ve known friends for over 30 years, and I consider a few my best friends. But do I KNOW them definitively? Kinda hard since I’m not with them 24/7/365 and I’m not clairvoyant. I didn’t KNOW my closest brother was gay until he came out to me. People often don’t KNOW a family member is a pedophile, physically abusive, or has an addiction. Who KNOWS? The person I think is closest to me and I KNOW almost everything about – my husband – might be leading a double life and is really a highly trained assassin.

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 12:20 am

  under mod: I don’t absolutely KNOW what is true about the Jolie Pitts. And I don’t absolutely KNOW that their detractors are telling the truth either (although I can hazard a guess).

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 12:30 am

  Hello, everyone! Got Hello yesterday and compared the pics and text with People. Will post tomorrow.

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 12:49 am

  “I don’t absolutely KNOW what is true about the Jolie Pitts.” CORRECTION: I *can* say I KNOW parts of Angelina and Brad. It’s in the records: UNHCR mission reports, news tv and print interviews, first person eyewitness accounts (e.g. Newsweek going on a mission with Angelina), photos, videos, movies (showing their talent), corroborated reports (e.g., stunts, flying and motorcycles), non-profit foundation tax filings, projects like houses being built in the Lower 9th Ward, Ozark kids eating, American kids getting counseling, Iraqi kids going to school, etc.

• BlessBrangelina
  Aug 10, 2008 at 1:57 am

  It seems to me that in spite of declaring herself a “non pre-judger” Carrie has already judged this couple based on erroneous tabloid stories.

  I remember BOTH Brad and Angie denying they were involved WHILST he was married. That was the original charge against them. They admitted to getting together AFTER his separation, but up to today both deny liaisons before.

  Why isn’t everyone hung up with the misdeeds of JLo, Julia Roberts or Jennifer herself.

  Instead it’s always Brad and Angie who are bad people…why is that?

  After they set the record straight, the tabloids changed their attack and twisted it instead into he’s dating her BEFORE his divorce. Made it out to be wrong and an insult to Jennifer. Forgetting that they were legally separated. And totally ignoring others who actually “flaunted” their new relationships on red carpets, in full view of their x’s and the world.

  Something that Brad and Angie never did, they kept things on the DL by going to Africa, keeping out of public areas, but still, they were hounded.

  WOW Carrie, just WOW!
  Damned if they do and damned if don’t. Did you get as upset or cynical, when Jennifer released statements yesterday denying she was pregnant or was marrying JM??

  As for the babies, this is a clear example of my point. Any journalist worth their salt would have also looked at the possible exceptions to the rule, but NO. It’s Brad and Angie who did something wrong or People mag helped.

  Anything for hits, I guess. It’s worked for Us weekly, E! etc, so why not New York mag?

• Mary Ann
  Aug 10, 2008 at 6:50 am

  Gina, Matt even took Levi to a concert. I found that a little to much, but you are right, if it was the JP’s the negative writing would be in full force.

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  CELEB BABY PHOTOS 101

  http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/news-gossip/14m-dollar-babies-1450788.html

  excerpt: $14m dollar babies
  Edel Coffey on why two magazines thought it worthwhile to spend a record-breaking sum for pictures of Brangelina’s twins

  By Edel Coffey, Saturday August 09 2008

  [M]edia commentators tried to figure out how the respective magazines justified spending such a huge sum of money on what were essentially baby snaps. The pictures sent celebrity magazine publishers into a tailspin of bidding, which eventually resulted in the enormous price tag. The price paid for the pictures has set a new precedent and a high watermark for the type of money now expected for celebrity pictures. And what does it say about our society?

  There was no doubt that the cost of the pictures was excessive. Even Hello! itself made the decision to increase the cover price by 50p for the Brangelina issue, presumably in an attempt to recoup some of the fee. Michael O’Doherty is publisher of Ireland’s celebrity magazine VIP and a number of other glossy Irish titles. Does he think the fee paid can be recouped or even justified as good economic sense? “I don’t think you break even on these things,” he says. “The more nebulous thing is Hello! competes directly with OK! and there’s an element of ‘f*** you’ in this kind of money. When there’s a bidding war, common sense goes out the window. There’s such egos at work, particularly those two magazines as they compete so closely. Hello! will feel good about it.”
  But what is the common sense that supports spending this kind of fee on a photo shoot? “The basis on which they [Hello!] would do this is straightforward. Brad and Angelina are as big as it gets in terms of celebrity. To get anything approved by them is a big deal. Let’s say they double their circulation that week to a million readers and say they are going to get £1.50 back from each copy, that’s £750,000 extra.”

  But with extra print runs come extra printing costs, so is it possible to recoup the money on sales alone? “They make it back in other ways,” says O’Doherty. “They’ll be telling advertisers that this is the story of the year. They would have six or eight pages at premium rates, placing ads beside the pictures of Brad and Angelina.” There are other less immediate ways to recoup the money though, says O’Doherty. “They will be hoping to hold on to a percentage of the extra readers. If they get 500,000 more they’d hope to keep 100,000 of those for the next few issues. Then that overall increase would result in higher ABC figures, which would lead to higher advertising rates.” And so on. There is also the possibility of syndication, which becomes more lucrative when your subject matter is globally famous. “They’re worldwide. Hello! isn’t only published in the UK. All their other magazines in the world will have them too.”

  Media commentator Roy Greenslade thinks they would have done the sums. “They must have made a commercial decision. These things are not just about you getting it, but are about preventing your rival from getting it. There are three aspects really: 1) Can you make the money on the edition? 2) Does it give you lots of publicity? 3) Does it have longevity? I think they’re unlikely to lose in the long run. It makes sense in terms of commerce.”

  Greenslade says we shouldn’t be cynical about the Jolie-Pitts’ charitable deeds. “Isn’t it a wonderful thing that you know your celebrity sells and you’ve got a set of charities and you can help them in a way that even out of your own funds you couldn’t?” O’Doherty says celebrities like Brad and Angelina rarely engage in publicity photos for the money. So why do it then? “They don’t want to be hounded. They know there’s an interest in this and they know that it will throw the [the paparazzi] off the scent, and there will be no need to stalk them. ”

  Greenslade adds: “We’ve always been interested in celebrity, but once it was kings and war heroes and sportspeople. We’ve long held film stars as special, but we are in such a terrible state now that we have to invent stars to maintain the amount of publications. We’re certainly in that realm where celebrity has become more important than religion. In fact, it is the new religion. Religion has faded and what we seek to replace religion is somebody or something to look up to.”

• Ligaya
  Aug 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm

  under mod: CELEB BABY PHOTOS - why and does the economics make sense?

  Greenslade adds: “We’ve always been interested in celebrity, but once it was kings and war heroes and sportspeople. We’ve long held film stars as special, but we are in such a terrible state now that we have to invent stars to maintain the amount of publications. We’re certainly in that realm where celebrity has become more important than religion. In fact, it is the new religion. Religion has faded and what we seek to replace religion is somebody or something to look up to.”

• Ligaya
  Aug 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

  Alice Van Kuren, do you think you might have looked at the price of subscribing for a year? I did the same thing as you and was shocked. Then I found the single issue price of 1.88 pounds. Hope that helps.

• Ligaya
  Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  My PEOPLE/HELLO COMPARISON – If I could only get one, I’d get Hello. The JPs are natural and relaxed in all the pictures.

  Hello has the advantage in its HUGE photo sizes compared to People.

  The only pics People has which Hello doesn’t are:
  • the different cover and
  • the 4 small pictures of Maddox, Pax, Zahara and Shiloh being held by one of their parents;
  • People also has a pic of Hello’s cover.

  The pics Hello has which People doesn’t:
  • Angelina holding Vivienne and Brad holding Knox (very sweet);
  • Max and Vivienne (a close-up of the pic with Brad and each of the boys holding a twin);
  • Close-up of Knox.

  A lot of the text overlaps, but People’s and Hello’s questions and write-ups aren’t identical. People is more straightforward and staccato. Hello is more expressive.

  The only disadvantage I see to Hello is that its paper wrinkles more easily.

• jane
  Aug 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  hi ligaya ,thanx, i got d copy now,hi all d avid fan of the jolie- pitt

• le
  Aug 11, 2008 at 7:18 pm

  There’s something that i can not stand is to spread a bad reputation of someone you even dont know. That the pap. usually do with Jolie-Pitts family.

  Credibility is something hard and take time to build, but easily be destroy . So you better think twice or even more before you lie, because to tell lies would have big consequence especially if you are public figure.

  I consider the story in the tabloid magazine as a fortune teller.

• Liz
  Aug 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  Hello JP fans I just got my People Mag here in Hawaii and still looking for Hello - after work that be my plan. Hosnestly called People Mag and told them I will subscribe if they send me the “twins” cover” I was told they will start the Sep one instead of Aug. Well, I told the customer service the reason I wanted the subs. is because of the JP. Does anybody know the tally if People and Hello made up? Well, the pictures was so georgeoussssss and Shi she is so adorable.

• Amanda
  Aug 13, 2008 at 5:15 am

  Hi dear JP fans, I’m in Asia, can’t buy people magazine right now.
  Would you mind advising me if these are really the photos inside people? Looks like they’re same as “Hello”
  http://webescape.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/special-double-issue-of-people-magazine-with-knox-leon-jolie-pitt-and-vivienne-marcheline-jolie-pitt-along-with-the-rest-of-the-clan/

  Thank you so much!!!!!!

• Ligaya
  Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 am

  Amanda, that’s because the majority of photos are in *both* magazines. See my post above to see what’s different (Ligaya, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm).

• BlessBrangelina
  Aug 14, 2008 at 3:29 am

  One or two picture differences, Amanda.

  And the Hello mag. reads cuter and seems more intimate.

• farika
  Aug 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

  beautiful pictures of the jolie pitt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vOV7oxZCvE

Have an opinion? Leave a comment: