Image Credit: David Gabber/Photorazzi/PR PhotosHere is something I can’t figure out: Why is Jennifer Aniston’s movie career not at least proportionally as huge as her tabloid allure? I mean this as a compliment. While I’m long, long, long over hearing about her breakup with Brad Pitt and subsequent lack of a love that satisfies the gossip-mongering masses, I never tire of watching the woman light up a screen. And as she’s done the rounds to promote The Switch the last few weeks, my longstanding affection for her has only been stoked once again. First came her public comments, in reference to The Switch‘s artificial insemination plot: “Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.” So wise! So true! So pro-woman! Then, after Bill O’Reilly called said comments “destructive to our society,” she fired back by saying that “for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.” Even wiser, truer, and more pro-woman.
Then she hit us with a less-controversial dose of charm when stopping by The Daily Show to reminisce about her awkward one-time date with Jon Stewart:
Am I the only one who would pay to watch this date? I didn’t know I could love a publicity tour until this one came along — but, alas, it ended with a whimper today: Blah box-office for The Switch (eighth place with $8.1 million). But! One ray of hope! And a bright, shiny, funny one at that: Word is that Aniston will guest on fellow Friend Courteney Cox’s underappreciated ABC comedy Cougar Town in the show’s season premiere, playing Cox’s shrink.
This made me think: Is the answer for Aniston a return to TV in a leading role? Not that she isn’t doing just fine — I could be persuaded to be content with a life in which I starred in films with Jason Bateman and rocked a super-cute ponytail while making chummy appearances on The Daily Show. But I can’t help wanting more of the hilarious (and just darn good) actress Jennifer Aniston in our lives instead of the John Mayer-dating and Brad Pitt-divorcing tabloid figure Jennifer Aniston. My dream scenario: An edgy Showtime dramedy starring Aniston — she would kill at the funny-poignant stuff that goes on over there. Think Big C, Weeds, United States of Tara. Hell, it’s too bad she already did The Switch — that could’ve been a great TV premise instead.
What do you think, PopWatchers? Are you still rooting for Jennifer Aniston? What would you like to see her do next?
who cares, she will still do movies, she has better box office draw than most female actors, just pay her a fair wage
she has never carried a hit movie on her own. She needs a high profile actor.
She’s one of the top 5 paid female actress. Her pay is out of proportion to what her movies earn. Count me as one of those confused by the notion that we’re somehow being mean by pointing out her penchant for flops. I also still don’t understand why she can’t just go away and take a break for 6 months. Reese, Julia, Nicole–all actresses whose movies make more money and are better, all of whom give the movie-going public a break every once in a while. The only thing Aniston’s done that made money was Marley and Me and the dog saved that one.
What is wrong with the Jews in Hollywood? That girl does not need to make another movie,EVER! Give her a TV show and that will go wrong too. You are wasting your money, and you love your money. No offense. Get rid of her,she sucks!
SHE SUCKS.
Trish: Hello, BIGOT. I suppose Christians hate that filthy green paper called money. You know why Jennifer’s A.’s all over the place in our faces, even though she doesn’t have much talent? Because she spends a lot of green paper (for all you Christians out there that means: money) for public relations. She obviously has a high-powered PR team that do an outstanding job. They got her name on this website, where it generated a true racist rant. To Jen’s PR people: Job well done.
American legal tender i.e. folding money is made of cloth not paper. DOH!
TV should be Aniston’s next step. I think she’s great on TV and so-so in films. It could also be her film choices because in her one Independent film, “The Good Girl” she was wonderful. She reminds me of Lucille Ball – Lucy was never a movie star but hello, she became TV legend. Think Aniston should seriously consider developing her own TV series.
Her acting talent is average at best and her beauty is already fading.
T.V. is a better medium for her.
She has very good talent and her beauty is better than any one of these so called young beauties we see on tv or the movies now.Nearly all the beauties we see on tv or the movies have nothing for brains you must come from another planet.
She has been making the same kind of movies for…. what? 6-7 years since she left Friends? I hear she wants to direct…I would get sick of making the same drivel year after year. And yes she got upstaged by the dog Marley.
It aint exactly PRO-WOMEN to tell them they dont need a man to have a baby. Especially if the baby is a future women who wont have the benefit of a dad. Is it PRO WOMEN if a son grows up without a father and so becomes the guy that doesnt know how to love his future women. Easy for a rich women to pop off all this single mom nonsense.
This is off topic for the article above, but I felt your post was begging for a response. As someone who grew up in a two parent household, I can tell you flat out that simply having a father around doesn’t ensure young men are going to grow up to “know how to love his future women (sic).” This kind of psycho-babble, sound-bite nonsense holds no water. I’ve got two brothers who consistently treat women poorly. Why? Because they learned by example, following in the footsteps of their all too present father. Show me the benefit of having that kind of father around.
S. Mathis.. just sit down and shut up.
Better to not have a father present than some ignorant @ss who mistreats his wife, children and anyone else because he himself doesn’t know what to do with his life… much like you. I would have hated to have a father like you who thinks so greatly of himself.
blaaake! Can you READ? Jen said women don’t need to fiddle with men to have kids AND NOT talking about cases where a man is inadequate or cruel, forcing the woman to go it alone. She’s advocating single parenting as a lifestyle cutting men out from the get go. And, I do think that’s a bad idea unless you are really rich and have a big support team. Most women can’t afford that kind of a lifestyle esp in today’s economy. Plus, what about the kid? Don’t you think a child would want two parents rather than one?
S. Mathis – My brother and I grew up in a house without a father. For your information, my brother has a steady girl friend and he respects her more than any of his friends who had their fathers around. You should stop commenting on this issue coz clearly you have no clue!
Kiki, I can read but can you? Obviously not since you didn’t understand the context in which I was saying what I did.
Loser.
Where should she go. How about “away?” Or just back to the small screen. Reminds me of Mary Tyler Moore; Jen started her movie career very late and is still trying to choose young gal roles. Jen needs to evolve and play her own age, but she’s not alone. Kate Hudson, SJP and J-Lo are all cranking out cutsie movies and pretending to still be engenues.
Home. Away. Mongolia. Just please stop boring us to tears!
When a gal shows up to a date with a “posse” of other gals it means she’s not that into you, and wants you to know that this is “not a date” even tho she did agree to go. It’s less hurtful than not showing up at all, but just barely. It’s not her fault, we were all indoctrinated into the “The Rules” craziness back then, but it doesn’t seem like Jess has evolved past that hyper manipulative 90′s method of overthinking each and every dating move. Bet she wishes now she’d shown up alone for that date with Jon.
Maybe if Jennifer stopped playing the SAME TIRED ROLE in everyyyyy movie she’s in…her career might budge forward a bit.
She makes exclusively “chick-flick” movies. Usually the main character is a woman, thirty-something, has lost love, is looking for love, is bitter about love’ yada, yada yada. She reaching the age where’s she’s getting too old for those parts. What will she do next? She’ll have to re-invent herself but may not have the acting talent to carry her through into a new phase.
That’s the thing she has no depth as an actress. Can you imagine her playing anything remotely close to what Meryl Streep could do?
I think that TV Aniston is a much better bet than movie Aniston because her movies are in effect sitcom pilots.
best comment of the week so far
so true.
I agree.
Never thought of it that way, but you’re exactly right.
This is why I ALWAYS say she’s just playing Rachel in all her movies, because that’s basically all she’s doing.
I think Aniston needs to go under the radar for awhile. She keeps making film after film after film and they all suck. She needs to take a couple of years off. People are tired of her.
So agree, Liz. She makes way too many films and not any of them are anything other than connect the dots plots or romcoms which, in her hands, are boring. I love Sandra Bullock, fr’instance, and think she is a movie star. But Jen needs to go back to TV where she is just great.
I don’t think its a coincedence that her publicists announced the Cougartown news today to give people something “else” to talk about.
I agree. She should do “edgy” TV; or a Moonlighting type show.
Her appearance on Cougar Town was announced weeks ago. Try and keep up.
Actually it was a rumor that the producers of Cougartown said was not true although they would love to have her on their show.
Someone on another site (ESPN of all places, hes kind of a pop culture guy) actually had a theory: This is why Aniston doesnt have a man. Its not insecurity or pickiness on her part, or shes a psycho, or shes not over Brad Pitt. Its not because she cant find one, its because THATS her role in the public eye, the “unlucky in love” hot early 40′s woman. What would we have to talk about, if not that? How would she get on the cover of the magazines? Clearly not by her ability to draw a crowd to a movie, since every single movie she has ever taken a leading role in has stiffed (Marley and Me could have starred Cloris LEachman and done 100 mil). She will never find a man, intentionally, because the second she does, her 15 minutes are up. What would we have to talk about, once she finds one? Look at Julia Roberts, although Julia’s seemingly pompous personality also has a bit to do with her fading star.
yeah, I remember reading that. it was a Bill Simmons piece I’m pretty sure.
Her rocket to superstar-dom while married to Pitt disproves this theory
her rocket to superstar dome prior to her marriage also disproves this theory. Rachel and her hairstyle were iconic by the 2nd year of Friends
Wow. What an unbelievably sexist theory. Although since it comes from someone who works for ESPN, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Either way Cougar Town is a good cure for insomnia. NOT underrated.
I fell sorry for Jen, Give it some time she will be doing Lifetime Moovies
why? she doesn’t need the money.
Don’t knock Lifetime movies. I need something to watch when I’m cleaning the house on Saturdays.
Thank you Andrea. Why do people knock Lifetime movies? When I read the words, “A mother fears her baby is possessed…” I know my Sunday afternoon is locked. Crossword puzzle, microwave popcorn and devil baby — where’s the downside?
So cruel. Full of sass this morning, I see.
Hey. It’s not cruel. A job is a job and I can totally see Aniston on Lifetime.
I was commenting on Ames’ “My Devil Baby” film descrption. How did I miss that one? Pass the popcorn.
Uh, no… don’t see the big allure of JA that you do… and apparently the rest of the public doesn’t as well judging by her recent box office $$. I do agree with you that TV is probably the better vehicle for her.
Thank you Michelle..I have been saying this for last few years…she will definitely be back on television full time.
I don’t know being 7th and being 3rd overall in terms of per theater take is not doing too bad. I find it interesting the sheer number of posts about Aniston’s career on the internet every time a movie is out. every one of these articles keeps saying she’s not a movie star etc, yet look at all the webspace dedicated to her. No other actor has that kind of scrutiny -otherwise other A list movie stars’ box office history would be on display (Clooney, Damon, even Jolie who’s Changeling and Mighty Heart were pretty awful in terms of box office haul) yet no grand multiple online articles about their career history…
Fascinating
Maybe this is a huge sign that she should stop doing terrible movies and playing the same character over and over (the bounty hunter anyone?). Head back to t.v. and play whoever you want, it could be great.
I agree… cut the hair, or dye it, and play a REAL character, not the same girl in different rom-com situations.
I am tired of seeing her as the girl who gets the guy… why not a character-driven movie??
you haven’t seen Good Girl, derailed, friends with money or management. Perhaps you would understand that she does change her hair and not all her movies are about getting the guy. Why don’t you cuss out Sandy Bullock for that as well? Majority of her films are about getting the guy…
yes, but Jen is a “product”. She said her fans were disappointed in “Derailed” so no edgy anything. Just ‘finding Mr Right’ until she is past menopause, which is in 5 or so years!
Then will be on Showtime, FX, or even ABC in some crime show.
LOL… I am a fan of Jen, but seriously? In every SINGLE one of those movies, her hair was the same straight highlighted California look. And in Derailed, I’m pretty sure she wore the exact same outfit in the Bounty Hunter.
She needs a change, STAT.
Yep. She’s been recycling Rachel for years to the point that it’s probably all anyone expects from her. She needs to really shake things up. I personally don’t care for her so I don’t care where her career goes from this point.
Amen
Jen comes off as needy, emo and whiny in public and private. She seems to enjoy playing the victim. Would be great to see her play a strong confident woman for a change instead of the bumbling oopsie cutsie rom com queen. How many ways can one trip adorably and bump into the man of your dreams?
I’ve always enjoyed watching her on TV or in movies, but I think she’d see much more success returning to TV full-time.
totally love this article and every single thing it says. that tv idea was great too. i still love movie jen, but i do agree that she has the talent, star power, and super charm to go even bigger and do another iconic role. it’s too bad that it seems like people view TV as “lesser” to movie, which lessens the chances of her returning. in some cases, they are. in others, totally not. plus when she is getting the attention, money, and film roles, what’s to push her to tv again?
I love that you said people seem to view TV as lesser than movies! That always drives me crazy, like it is a step down or something. I think a lot of current TV is better than a lot of the current films being released. That being said, I think Aniston is a movie star. The Switch’s box office is a little perplexing, I saw it in a nearly sold out theater in Michigan, I thought it was hilarious and surprisingly moving, and at the end the audience applauded a little. It was definately one of her best. I think it is a classic case of overexposure, she seems to have a movie out every 6 months(which as a fan, doens’t bother me), when Julia Roberts, Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, etc were in their prime, they only had films out every year, or even less…
I agree about TV not being a step down from the movies. Give me Damages, Lost, Breaking Bad, Dexter, or Mad Men over most of the garbage that has come out in theaters this year. Some of the best acting over the past couple years have been performances in TV shows that I mentioned. I honestly love hearing when movie stars go for fantastic roles on TV series.
The reason Aniston’s career isn’t as big as her tabloid image is because she isn’t a great actress. She’s passable at best. I have nothing against her personally; she seems like a really nice woman and I get the feeling that performance wise, she does the best she can. But since the public can’t focus on her talent (since she has so little) they focus on her personal life, especially since it involves some box-office giants. As for her going back to TV, that depends. I do think that TV is a better medium for her, but if she’s doing another thinly-veiled variation of Rachel Green, then no.
I’m with you on this one. I love Jennifer and she’s so talented…I feel like she should do more serious movies, enough with the romantic comedy already. But she’s great in everything she does and I’m always rooting for her.
I actually really liked the Switch and thought it was a good movie. Jason Bateman was the true star, so I’m bummed that it wasn’t a hit for him.
I don’t know about anywhere else, but in my smallish (certainly not in the middle of nowhere) town, The Switch wasn’t playing at either of the close theaters and I would have had to drive about an hour to get to a theater that was playing it, so small box office numbers don’t really surprise me too much.
Love Jen and I think she would be great on a Weeds-type show.
Jen doesn’t project the intelligence and edge of actresses like Mary Louise Parker, Toni Colette or the women on Big Love. I don’t know if she could carry a really outstanding and avant-garde TV series.
to the people constantly mentioning the switch’s weak opening: it’s ONE movie. it was not some $20000 trillion dollar “this is anticipated to be the biggest thing of all time” movie that crumbled. it was a romantic comedy released on just 2,000 theaters with no big male star and not a lot of hype. that’s all. just another movie. next year, she’ll be in another $100 million+ earning comedy. and whether you enjoyed them or not, she has a string of box-office hits behind her. anyone saying otherwise just doesn’t know the facts. you can be all cynical and go “oh this works because of this. oh that worked because of this. blah blah” but she was the female lead in all of them and she keeps getting lead roles. you can’t change that fact.
the only successful movies she’s been in have been adaptations of popular books (he’s just not that into you, marley & me) or where she was the distant second/third banana (bruce almighty), so it’s not like she can carry a movie. if she wants to do less high profile projects, i’m all for it, but considering the amount of attention she’s paid, her movies should be doing better. and also, rom-coms CAN do well at the box office. just look at the proposal.
this is completely not true, The Break Up, Along Came Polly, The Bounty Hunter and yes Marley & Me and HJNTIY were successful financially and The Good Girl and Friends With Money were critically successful indies
I agree completely . . . The Break Up had Vince Vaughn who has opened many films, Along Came Polly had Ben Stiller and ditto, The Bounty Hunter had Gerard Butler, Marley and Me had a good book, a dog and Owen Wilson, and HJNITY was an ensemble cast based on a popular book. She has been very lucky more than anything. Anytime she’s in a movie by herself Management, Love Happens, The Switch,–the films are not as successful. Why does Hollywood insist that she’s A list
again? I don’t get it. I was never impressed with her as a na ctress
or in her interviews. Which 41 year old woman still uses the word “retard”? And she has yet to acknowledge that flub either.
So how is she any different than Cameron Diaz or Demi Moore? They were only successful in ensemble pictures or with a big male co-star, but could never open a movie on their own – yet no one question their A-list status, so why question Aniston’s?
Cameron and Demi are A-list??? that’s news to me…and to Hollywood lol!
Her movie made 8.45 million and it was 7th place. It had the 3rd highest per screen average. How come no one is telling Maggie Gyllenhal to go do television
How is not providing a child with a father “pro-woman”? It’s certainly not “pro-child”.
I think most of what society does today isn’t pro-child.
Just go away.
Why? Can’t face the reality of what ann said?
I have to agree with Ann here. If you reach a “certain age” and you haven’t met someone you want to have a kid with, I think maybe adoption would be a wonderful route to pursue – then the child is going from no parents to at least one. But I’m also missing a biological clock.
Oh lord, annietoo. Just because you and Bill O’Reilly think something is true does not make it a ‘reality.’ Any nitwit who’s done their homework knows that there are single-parent households that do very well. Crawl out of your tiny world and look around. It’s a much more diverse place than you realize.
CC, I think you should read ann’s question again – and if you can explain to me how not providing a father for your child is “pro-woman” I would like to hear it. Allison made the best point- adopting a child who needs a family is a powerful thing to do and says a lot about one’s motivation to be a mother. And certainly there are wonderful single parents out there who are doing the best job. Choosing insemination over adoption appears to be focusing more on the experience of being pregnant, which I know many women crave, but it only lasts 9 months. A child is forever.
I agree with you Kim.
I agree with you, Allison.
annietoo-Experiencing pregnancy is not all it’s about. They say men like to “spread their own seed” well some women would like to have a baby that is from their own flesh and blood too. I’m not acvocating single parenting don’t get me wrong. But just pointing out that pregnancy is not always the reason or the only reason. Pregnany is a frighteneng thing,anything can happen and mom and baby live’s are at risk. I would think that Jennnifer Anniston is realistic enough to realize that.
@LadyBug
I think the expression is, “…men want to spread their seed.” with emphasis on the spreading part – not so much the seed.
@Jared I added the word “own” because the emphasis needed to be there due to the point I was making to annietoo. Which was women want children of their “own” flesh and blood too.
So, LadyBug, let’s see if I understand – You added a word to a saying in order to make a point? So, you “doctored” the saying to suit your purpose? Sorry, that negates the whole premise, which is good because your point was women want their “own flesh and blood” as opposed to loving on a mother-less child. Sounds a little selfish to me.
Jared, come on you’ve missed my whole point. I’m not against either adopting or having your own biological child. I was trying to explain what Jennifer Anniston’s reasons may have been for defending artificial insemination.
Okay, that makes sense. I don’t agree that it is a good reason for defending artificial insemination, but that is my opinion. I’ve never been in a position to have to consider the choices, so I certainly cannot judge. But, I do get your point.:)
Some people can’t read. Jen is advocating it as a lifestyle choice. She said you don’t need to fiddle with a man to have a family. Many single family households get that way not by choice and that’s a different situation and NOT Jen’s point.
If you choose to start a family by yourself then you are depriving your child of another parent. For some, that can be detrimental, especially in today’s economy. I don’t think advocating single parenting is a good idea, unless the child is adopted or the person is really well off and has a strong family/support staff. I also think that if you ask any child–they would prefer two parents over one.
Wow, hello!, your great comment is the “wise” and “true” one of this discussion. JA, the author of this article, and all the posters who agree with her are WILDLY irresponsible in their promotion of creating children through donors. I was a single mother myself, but I was widowed, and there’s a huge difference. Many other couples start families and then find their marriages do not work, but share the raising of their children lovingly. There are many absolutely terrific single parents out there! But children need parents and roots–trust me, I have three adopted kids. Saying to a child, “Here’s your parent–some facts on a sheet of paper!” is a cruel and selfish act toward another human being who deserved to at least start out with an intact family! Check out the sad letter in the “Ask Amy” column about the young woman who wants to search for her sperm donor “father.” What an ache she must feel for this missing part of her life!
Exactly.
Must be ALL about her…