Bad Girl Interrupted "Home-wrecker"- Article on Angelina Jolie

[moomies]

Originally Posted by Somerset

I agree. She poses with them in photoshoots for magazines - I don't think anyone can argue that that is necessary. She did the Vanity Fair shoot with Maddox long before anyone can say that she "had" to do the photoshoot to quell the paparazzi. Are Reese Witherspoon's kids famous people in their own right? How about Johnny Depp's kids? She's made these kids into some of the most famous people in the world - if she was such a devoted, caring mother who didn't give a crap about the good PR, why would she do that? Someone please give me a good answer to that question and I'll be happy to jump onto St. Angelina's bandwagon.

I think you've raised a pretty good question. I have to wonder if trading in your kids' privacy through photoshoots she's done is worth the charities and millions she's giving away for good cause etc.
Her children are too young to understand it and they were given no choice whether they wanted to be involved in celebrity and fame.
Maybe she could've waited til they were old enough to make their decisions as to if they want to be famous on their own and give fortunes to the needy. Just a thought.

[shaki80]

I think what she's doing for charity is admirable whatever her intentions are(trying to improve her image, etc..) she's still drawing attention to important causes.
I've never personally felt that she was sincere though , something about her has always been off to me I guess.
And I hate the fact that everyone pretends like she's the new Mother Teresa and seems to think that she invented charity or something. Other people have dedicated their entire lives to helping the less fortunate and actually get their hands dirty in the process but don't get that much praise for their efforts. The whole "but..but she donates one third of her income to charity" thing also annoys me to no end, If I made a tens of millions of dollars for doing terrible movies , I would donate half of what I made not just one third and ALOT of rich people/celebrities donate anonymously, too.
I like the fact that she's adopting but Zahara is so close in age to Shiloh and now we hear she's planning to adopt another child. It seems rather obssesive to me.I also don't understand why she doesn't adopt children with disabilites since she has the means to take care of them or American children either. I'm not American, so I don't know how accurate the things I hear about the foster care system in America are but the impression I got was that alot of kids are desperate to be adopted there too.
I've tried to like her but I just can't , I'm part of that minority too

[moomies]

I know a Canadian person who adopted from the US. I don't know the circumstances behind why she didn't adopt in Canada but I'm assuming that it's easier and faster to do it in the US? And to adopt from overseas like Angie did (Africa, Southeast Asia) I think is a lot cheaper and faster as well.

p.s. I'm not saying Angie adopted because of the price range or anything.

[Voodoo Child]

Originally Posted by shaki80

I think what she's doing for charity is admirable whatever her intentions are(trying to improve her image, etc..) she's still drawing attention to important causes.
I've never personally felt that she was sincere though , something about her has always been off to me I guess.
And I hate the fact that everyone pretends like she's the new Mother Teresa and seems to think that she invented charity or something. Other people have dedicated their entire lives to helping the less fortunate and actually get their hands dirty in the process but don't get that much praise for their efforts. The whole "but..but she donates one third of her income to charity" thing also annoys me to no end, If I made a tens of millions of dollars for doing terrible movies , I would donate half of what I made not just one third and ALOT of rich people/celebrities donate anonymously, too.
I like the fact that she's adopting but Zahara is so close in age to Shiloh and now we hear she's planning to adopt another child. It seems rather obssesive to me.I also don't understand why she doesn't adopt children with disabilites since she has the means to take care of them or American children either. I'm not American, so I don't know how accurate the things I hear about the foster care system in America are but the impression I got was that alot of kids are desperate to be adopted there too.
I've tried to like her but I just can't , I'm part of that minority too

Very well said and ITA with all your points!

[ediebrooks]

I'm in the minority that doesn't like St. Angelina. She has always struck me as a phony. She sets off my bullshit radar, and my bullshit radar is pretty accurate.

[asha22]

The only thing that i can say for certainty which points to a character flaw is her dogged hatred of her father, who, for all intents and purposes, was worried that she might have had some 'problems' which could have prevented her from adopting. She herself has said that it was unforgivable for him to do that.........................BUT what about putting a baby into the care of someone with problems............surely that shows an awareness of concern FOR THE CHILD. I cant believe that Jon Voight didnt have both his daughters and Maddoxes welfare at heart even though the misguided (and wrong) way he went about exposing this was so disastrous, but to nurture a hatred this intense long after the successful fact (she hasnt been prevented from adopting) is very very harsh. People have forgiven others for worse.

[equallydivided]

Yeah, what you all said. If I ever DID like her, I'm over it now. I love the Mother Teresa remark, it's so true.

My sister is a foster mother for children with disabilities. Trust me when I say, Angelina couldn't handle it. It's not pretty, and if it doesn't make a good photo-op, then Angelina just isn't interested.

A little bit of irony that I see is, when the president gives money to foreign countries for their poverty stricken citizens, America gets all pissed off, saying that money should be sent here for OUR poverty first. Angelina Jolie does the same thing, and everyone thinks she's a fucking saint. Make up your mind people!

[ahtaste777]

It's just you... How the hell is raising awareness and personally donating millions and indirectly helping raise many millions fake?

Get over the bullshit "home-wrecker" and "bastard child" What a terrible thing to call Shiloh.

She didn't "steal" Brad, he went on his own accord. It obviously wasn't that good of a marriage anymore.

Angelina, like most of us, did some silly and even down-right stupid things in her 20's... Get over it.

I support then best damn poverty-fighting organization in the world right now as a direct result of Angelina's involvement. Check it out here.

What have you done?

Hoorah, very well said.
In reference to Reese Witherspoon not using her children in photo shoots and magazines - I would disagree. A few weeks ago those photos of her and Ryan and her children on the beach and there was the speculation that she might be pregnant again - that was after rumours of difficulties in their relationship. A lot of celebrities use their family for photo opportunities for their own benefit. Whether it's to quell rumours of upset etc etc.
I certainly don't think Angelina is the worst culprit in any way. There's a lot more media interest in Angelina than say Reese. If one thinks of the number of paparazzi photos in comparison to the rare times when she's posing with her children in "photoshoots and magazines" it doesn't really seem like she's exploiting her kids for her own benefit all the time.
I mean a worse example would surely be Sharon Osbourne - I do like her BTW. But bringing in a film crew to their home is surely worse for her children and using them for her own benefit.
At least Angelina is doing something. It seems like a win/win situation for the UN/charities anyway.

[Karizma]

Originally Posted by deckchick

It's just you... How the hell is raising awareness and personally donating millions and indirectly helping raise many millions fake?

Get over the bullshit "home-wrecker" and "bastard child" What a terrible thing to call Shiloh.

She didn't "steal" Brad, he went on his own accord. It obviously wasn't that good of a marriage anymore.

Angelina, like most of us, did some silly and even down-right stupid things in her 20's... Get over it.

I support then best damn poverty-fighting organization in the world right now as a direct result of Angelina's involvement. Check it out here.

What have you done?

Thank God some people still think like you.

Regarding trading her children's privacy, this is bullshit. Her children will be on tabloids frontpages like any other celeb. I have seen Johnny's Depp children, Renee's, Brook's, Gwyneth's and many other celebs who claim to be private. With lenses that can shoots' a celeb's penis or tits having sunbath or whatever in their private property, do you think they can't shoot their kids!? Unless we want her to cover up their faces or lock them up behind her, we would still see her children no matter what because like it or not a celeb's child is not like any other ordinary child.

[equallydivided]

[quote=ahtaste777]Hoorah, very well said.
In reference to Reese Witherspoon not using her children in photo shoots and magazines - I would disagree. A few weeks ago those photos of her and Ryan and her children on the beach and there was the speculation that she might be pregnant again [quote]

They aren't allowed to go to the beach? Was that either a photo shoot OR a magazine? COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in every way.

Originally Posted by Karizma

Thank God some people still think like you.

Regarding trading her children's privacy, this is bullshit. Her children will be on tabloids frontpages like any other celeb. I have seen Johnny's Depp children, Renee's, Brook's, Gwyneth's and many other celebs who claim to be private. With lenses that can shoots' a celeb's penis or tits having sunbath or whatever in their private property, do you think they can't shoot their kids!? Unless we want her to cover up their faces or lock them up behind her, we would still see her children no matter what because like it or not a celeb's child is not like any other ordinary child.

But in such a blatant manner? COME ON! Are the others SELLING photo ops of their kids?

[Karizma]

^ Well didn't Resee, Gwyneth, Brook, Cindy, Geri, Rachel Weisz, Julia Roberts, Britney Spears (and the list goes on) posed for magazines with their babies/children?

For those who didn't sell their photos, aren't their kids seen in tabloids anyway? hence they don't have privacy. Once they choose this profession, their lives, including their kids unfortunately, become public consumption.

C'mon now, Shiloh was going to be in tabloid NO MATTER what, so they were left with two options:
1) One of the pappz will take the photo and sell it for million(s);
2) stage the photo and donate the money, or like some other celebs save the money for themselves.

In both cases they wouldn't be able to protect her privacy.

[aabbcc]

Tom and Katie seem to be doing a good job protecting Suri's privacy. We haven't seen her in a tabloid yet.

[Karizma]

^ well that one i forgot

[Lalique]

Originally Posted by aabbcc

Tom and Katie seem to be doing a good job protecting Suri's privacy. We haven't seen her in a tabloid yet.

Here ya go:

[Lakesweetjane]

She's turning into a parody of herself. This interview gave me the impression that she views her chairty as community service for past sins.

I do think she was wrong to sleep with a married man, but he Brad's a dog too. I also think she would be no where without her beauty. She's very smart & articulate but still it's her beauty that made her.
__________________________________________________ __
I was born to rock, that's just what I do!