W November 2008 : Angelina Jolie by Brad Pitt

[Flashbang]

my...she sure loves to..err what's that called? those lips shaping...post #229 4th pic

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by McClaire

whats artistic about blurry black pictures? it's the equivalent of the Paris Hilton sex tape in night vision.i mean the second to last one? pointless.

I actually like that one. It has a shroud of Turin feel that I find interesting. I also like the second scan, it's beautifully arranged and lighted and remind me of a Lee Miller picture I love. The rest however...

i'm suprised his thumb isnt in the photos.

I also forgot to say in my previous post: since when actor are not artists?

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by Harumi

I also forgot to say in my previous post: since when actor are not artists?

Oh come on, everyone Knew what type of artist people are meaning...why do you think no one picked up on that?


I do not like this pics at all, there something purely voyeuristic about them that putts me off, I'm not at all interested in their private lives and I certainly do not need to see them "Playing", Brad he's perfectly aware that is wife is Angelina Jolie, the sex symbol, the saint etc, and he does nothing to gives us the woman he Knows, it's like their life is a creation of the press and there is nothing beyond the surface. This pics are like that, empty. Why would he think we need to see this?
The old film is also not working, it's just random.

[Style-Addict]

I love these pictures, they are great- yet I can't shake off the feeling that I shouldnt be seeing these. They are immensly private.

[CarMELita]

I think the more they share the "official version" of their private life, the more they can protect their "real" private life. People seem to need to get pictures of their family life so why not releasing offial ones in order to prevent market prices exploding for Paparazzi pics? I think it's very clever, letting the audience in as far as they must to be satisfied. And then, let's face it: The more pictures of their perfect family they release, the faster the world will be fed up with them and turn to other subjects ...

[eternitygoddess]

Those blurry pics. LoL. Yes, very artistic Mr. Pitt. Verrrry artistic.

Like someone else said, they look like Paris Hilton night video-cam photos.

[kroqjock]

I haven't completed all the scans yet, so don't get too judgemental on those six pictures. The other (smaller) pictures posted here earlier are also in the edit, so I'll leave those for last.

At first, I thought "Brad, you are a great actor but you got some terrible photography skills. Go take some photo classes, bee-yotch!" But after looking at these pics for some time, I actually find some of them to be quite beautiful. The pics of Angie in the dark are total crap but some of them do stand out.

Like I said, I urge everyone reading this to NOT buy the issue. All you'll need are the Angie scans. There's absolutely nothing in this issue that makes it worth the $5 price tag (not even the ads). Instead, spend that money on the new People Magazine/High School Musical 3 Special Issue (oh, dreamy Zac Efron.....)

[moussemaker]

^
Well, thank you for the scans then.

[Les_Sucettes]

Originally Posted by CarMELita

I think the more they share the "official version" of their private life, the more they can protect their "real" private life. People seem to need to get pictures of their family life so why not releasing offial ones in order to prevent market prices exploding for Paparazzi pics? I think it's very clever, letting the audience in as far as they must to be satisfied. And then, let's face it: The more pictures of their perfect family they release, the faster the world will be fed up with them and turn to other subjects ...

I do not agree at all, to me that sounds too much like some sort of masterplan to be credible , if they want to give the first pics of their kids to a magazine i can understand, It gives them control, they stop speculation and and they feed their publicity machine in their own terms ,it's all wins, it's all terribly cheesy but at least goes to charity and they are hailed as saints.

But there is no reason whatsoever to release pics like this if the intention is making people less interested in them, this is just fuel to the "monster" that is "Brangelina", free controled publicity wrapped in an "arty" package, they clearly do not want to keep anything private, there is so much a paparazzi can do, this pics are clearly pics that only someone very close could take, so why released them? Lots of famous actors guard their children's fiercely and I applaude them, it is possible, I'm totally against the way they use their kids in all of this. Their pics are not going to be less valuable because Brad took this pics, like it happens with the very specific case the the babies first pics.
Yesterday i say this pics all over those gossip mags, they are spreading.

[Fiercification]

And no fashion editorials again. WHAT IS GOING ON! Last month's issue was super nice but November is fast becoming a non-existent month for W magazine, next year I might completely ignore it

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by Les_Sucettes

Oh come on, everyone Knew what type of artist people are meaning...why do you think no one picked up on that?

No I don't. That was a genuine question and I don't understand why the statement: 'Brad is and actor not an artist' went unchallenged for so long.

Actors are artists. Performance artists if you must. If they put a picture of those German guys whose art consisted in spraying animal blood on their audience (true story) or ofPiero Manzoni (the guy would sold his crap in tin labeled Artist's s***), people would not be questioning their artist status.
I know actors don't meet this forum's standards for the definition of artist because they're though as the bottom-barrel, but like everything, there is good art and bad art, disgustingly commercial art and conscientious art. Maybe what most actors do is pure rubbish in term of art, it doesn't make them any less of an artist.
I wonder, if Tilda Swinton or another sophisticated and admired actor was on the cover instead of the much loathed Brange, would I need justifying calling her an artist?
Maybe only people who deal with a brush, a hammer or a barrel of formol and a shark are considered artists by some, but not by me, and I apologize for my lack of sophistication.
Afaic, there is an artist on this cover. Whether or not it was opportun to put this particular artist on that particular cover is another issue altogether.

[LetThemEatCake]

Originally Posted by Harumi

The preview pictures are mostly rubbish (except the one of her with Madd and Shi against a wall, remind me of a photo shoot with Sophia Loren).
Some of the scanned pictures seem more interesting.

I find hilarious this outrage about W becoming celebrity obsessed. Becoming?
Hello!?! W has been celebrity-obsessed for ages. As for the content, why nobody says it like it is: their feature is so elitist that they make Vogue look populist. They are obsessed with obscure European socialites, royals, random rich people, and 'legendary' (to 50 people) hostesses who need to flog their latest book 'How to Receive 100 people in total intimacy'. Even their fashion or jewelry features are really about money.
The only reason W gets away with being the American version of Tatler on this forum is because of consistently good fashion editorials. And even this has been lacking lately, imo.
I just don't think this publication is deserving of the high status it has in here. I use to think it did. Not anymore.
So the outrage about them 'lowering' themselves to the Brangelina level is just as artificial as the pictures, imo.

Seriously. Took the words out of my mouth. W hasnt had consecutive back to back model covers since probably 1996 or 1997. If they have, it's been Kate Moss two months in a row. They've always featured celebs on their covers and in their magazines, always. Anyone remember the JLo cover in Versace fur? I remember throwing the issue across the room when I received it. Anyhow, your last sentence, Harumi, sums it up perfectly as to this thread's continued whiny undertones. People shouldnt expect anything marvelous from this mag, and if they do, they're more than likely a new and young reader, like it seems a lot of the posters in this thread are.

[Manuva]

Originally Posted by kroqjock

.

Like I said, I urge everyone reading this to NOT buy the issue. All you'll need are the Angie scans. There's absolutely nothing in this issue that makes it worth the $5 price tag (not even the ads). Instead, spend that money on the new People Magazine/High School Musical 3 Special Issue (oh, dreamy Zac Efron.....)

Thanks for the tip, but this is still a must buy for me. They both absolutely fascinate me, and I still think this issue is going to be one I cherish (and that can't be said for many magazines this year), it's surely going to be a collectors item in years to come. It's on a par with if say, Bogie and Bacall or Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton published candid pictures of each other, they're just one of those power couples.
I don't even have a problem with Brad shooting this, I mean what would, say, Steven Klein do with Angelina, Brad and the kids that he hasn't already shot before? They've already done that set up, and have been photographed by all the major photographers. So surely all that was left that was 'new' was to photograph each other and publish it?

[sweetest_313]

Originally Posted by Flashbang

my...she sure loves to..err what's that called? those lips shaping...post #229 4th pic

I've no idea, fish lips? pretzel?

They sure do make a perfect number 8. I bet shes the only person who can proudly say shes capable of doing that

[eternitygoddess]

I do not agree at all, to me that sounds too much like some sort of masterplan to be credible , if they want to give the first pics of their kids to a magazine i can understand, It gives them control, they stop speculation and and they feed their publicity machine in their own terms ,it's all wins, it's all terribly cheesy but at least goes to charity and they are hailed as saints.

But there is no reason whatsoever to release pics like this if the intention is making people less interested in them, this is just fuel to the "monster" that is "Brangelina", free controled publicity wrapped in an "arty" package, they clearly do not want to keep anything private, there is so much a paparazzi can do, this pics are clearly pics that only someone very close could take, so why released them? Lots of famous actors guard their children's fiercely and I applaude them, it is possible, I'm totally against the way they use their kids in all of this. Their pics are not going to be less valuable because Brad took this pics, like it happens with the very specific case the the babies first pics.
Yesterday i say this pics all over those gossip mags, they are spreading.

Ditto Dit. Esp. with a title that screams PRIVATE PHOTOS. Maybe they'll release an "artistic" sex tape next. Hmmm...