Jennifer Aniston: The industry ‘is not that glamorous anymore,’ it’s about TikTokers

Boris Johnson Covid-19 Presser

Jennifer Aniston covers the latest issue of the Hollywood Reporter, because she was named the recipient of THR’s Sherry Lansing Leadership Award, for her career and her philanthropic work. The interview is pretty intensive, especially considering Aniston hasn’t been doing these longer interviews in recent years. She talks about The Morning Show, the sequel to Murder Mystery (with Adam Sandler) and the Friends reunion. There are casual mentions of Justin Theroux and the thing which disrupted her life almost seventeen years exactly: her divorce from Brad Pitt. His name isn’t mentioned, but it’s definitely odd how Pitt and their divorce hangs over the interview like a specter. Truly, it will be 17 years in January since they announced their divorce. You can read the full THR piece here. Some highlights:

Filming the ‘Friends’ reunion brought up weird & sad memories: “You get there and it’s like, “Oh right, I hadn’t thought about what was going on the last time I was actually here.” And it just took me by surprise because it was like, “Hi, past, remember me? Remember how that sucked? You thought everything was in front of you and life was going to be just gorgeous and then you went through maybe the hardest time in your life?”

What she thought her life would be post-Friends: “It was more personal stuff that I had expectations about that sort of shape-shifted, so to speak. That was what was jarring, that we all had an idea of what the future was going to be and we were going to go hunker down and focus on this or that and then it all just changed overnight, and that was it. But again, everything’s a blessing if you’re able to look at life’s ups and downs in that way. And if it all hadn’t happened, I would not be sitting here the woman that I am.

Whether we should reassess Aniston’s tabloid years: “I don’t know, because I think people are still doing it today. What the tabloids and the media did to people’s personal lives back then, regular people are doing now. Although I haven’t seen a tabloid in so long. Am I still having twins? Am I going to be the miracle mother at 52? (Laughs.) Now you’ve got social media. It’s almost like the media handed over the sword to any Joe Schmo sitting behind a computer screen to be a troll or whatever they call them and bully people in comment sections. So it’s just sort of changed hands in a way. And I don’t know why there’s such a cruel streak in society. I often wonder what they get off on.

How Hollywood saw her: “I was the girl next door, the damsel in distress, the brokenhearted — your traditional rom-com themes. And at a certain point, it was like, “Can’t we do something else? Am I just on this part of the cereal aisle? Like, will I ever get to be a bountiful Kashi or some sort of oatmeal, or am I going to be Fruit Loops forever?” And then you start to doubt yourself. “Maybe I can’t? Maybe there’s a reason that no one [is giving me these opportunities]?” Now, so much is self-generated, which is great since I wasn’t going to get the jobs I’m really interested in because the industry isn’t secure enough to say, “Yeah, let’s try it.” They go for the actors they know can play the fancy dramatic roles. But there are still certain directors I’d love to work with, ones who have their pick of who they like, and sometimes I want to go, “I’d love to be part of that club.”

What the industry is like now: “I don’t know because I don’t know what the industry is anymore. It’s not the same industry that it used to be. It’s not that glamorous anymore. It’s slowly becoming about TikTok and Instagram followers. It’s like, we’re hiring now based on followers, not talent? Oh, dear. And I’m losing touch. I’m not great at going, “I’m going to stay relevant and join TikTok.”

Liberal vax-hole: “That’s the other thing about the pandemic: I’m prone to agoraphobia, and so I used to be like, “Let’s go to dinner,” and now I’m like, “No, let’s not. Come over, come over, come over.” I think I’ve been to five restaurants [since the pandemic began], and the same ones because they required vaccinations. You know, someone literally called me a “liberal Vax-hole” the other day. I don’t understand the disconnect right now, being bullied for wanting people not to be sick? I mean, that’s what we’re talking about.

Whether the attention on her personal life affected her professional life: “I used to take it all very personally — the pregnancy rumors and the whole “Oh, she chose career over kids” assumption. It’s like, “You have no clue what’s going with me personally, medically, why I can’t … can I have kids?” They don’t know anything, and it was really hurtful and just nasty….It’s the same with Dolly Parton; Dolly Parton never had kids. But are people giving her sh-t for it? No, no one’s tried to put her in a white picket fence.

The double-standard: “Which is such a double standard: Men can be married as many times as they want to, they can marry [younger] women in their 20s or 30s. Women aren’t allowed to do that. Men in their 30s, by the way, are way different from men in their 40s and 50s. And late 20s even — it’s a whole new world that I’m finding is alive and kicking and they’re not … what was my point?

[From THR]

There’s nothing wrong with what she says and I largely agree with it, but I’ll say this, as someone who has covered Aniston for years: she really coasts on people not remembering (or not wanting to remember) her own words and actions. She acts like all of this – the “girl next door” stereotyping, the interest in her love life, her status as the Wronged Woman, even the questions about motherhood – was just dropped in her lap out of nowhere, like she didn’t actively participate in it and cultivate it for years. Was she treated badly, was she stereotyped and limited by her tabloid persona? Yes. She was. Did she also actively build that tabloid persona into her celebrity/actress brand? Yes. Absolutely.

Cover & IG courtesy of THR.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

80 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston: The industry ‘is not that glamorous anymore,’ it’s about TikTokers”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    Doesn’t every celebrity build a brand, though? The successful ones at any rate. You have an image and you cultivate it and people either love it or don’t. I don’t see her saying that she didn’t build her image, I see her saying that after a certain point she wanted to break free of that image, which makes sense because the roles you want and are happy with at 25/30 aren’t going to be the roles you want at 50 (I’m assuming at any rate, I am not an actress, lol.) So i’m not going to hate on her for that.

    When I first saw the headline about Hollywood not being “glamorous” anymore I wasn’t sure how to take it, because I always feel like it was more glamorous in theory than in actuality, right? It was always kind of nitty gritty and ugly behind the scenes. But if she’s talking specifically about Tiktok and influencers and all that and how social media has changed the industry, it makes more sense I guess.

    • WithTheAmerican says:

      So much this. Look at Angie, she went from blood sucking brother kissing to goddess mother of the century. They all do it.

      I also think Aniston got pigeonholed into nice girl loser rom coms because the industry is (used to be?) so snobby about comedy.

      I hate that everything is about Instagram and TikTok now. Followers are the new “she can’t pack a theatre” lies. Followers don’t equal viewers.

    • equality says:

      Previously, the media was invested in preserving the artificial glamour. Now people look at the industry more realistically. You would think that in a time when many women opt for career first and not motherhood, that wouldn’t be such a big deal though.

    • thinking aloud says:

      Even though Tom Cruise is crazy, I do think he has some kind of glamour (or used to in his youth when he was making movies like A Few Good Men and The Firm) that I wouldn’t necessarily associate with a Tik-Toker (of any age).

      I watched Ocean’s 11 recently with George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, and the other big movie actors of that era in that movie. I was trying to picture that movie being made with Tik-tokers today, and I couldn’t really imagine the product hitting the same way.

      Maybe the publicists of these movie stars gave them the illusion of gravitas. Since Tik-Tokers don’t have publicists guiding their image, you see everything unfiltered, and they seem too much like regular people. Well, I suppose they ARE regular people (but without publicists who could maybe guide them on being larger-than-life). The point of a movie star is they’re supposed to be a bit different from the rest of us. A Tik-Toker seems so much like myself, I don’t feel like watching them in appreciation (or whatever it is I do when I’m watching a movie — I’m essentially giving my time over to watch them).

      • Lyds says:

        I absolutely agree but I also think the new generation (geez I feel old) consume pop culture so differently from how I did (elder millennial here). It’s sped up entertainment in (AD)HD. For example, I simply cannot get into Tik-tok…I crave something that holds my attention, and not divert it every 30 seconds or whatever. I’m constantly scouring the internet for long-form articles and in-depth interviews of current events. I’ve always been more of a reader than a viewer or listener so podcasts and short clips with ads get on my nerves after awhile.

        I get what Jennifer is saying about glamour. Before, when models were captured as an image on a page, there was mystique and a picture really did speak a thousand words. Now the moving magazine covers are so distracting/often diminishes a photographer’s skill. A model promoting her cover on Instagram and thanking everyone is just, not letting the image speak for itself. Because celebrities are taking the intimate, reality-TV/influencer model, you fail to differentiate them from other people who occupy your iPhone screens. There is such a thing as too much and I am thankful when celebs decide to take a break from the public eye (vs those who update their followers every few hours).

        In short, I agree w Aniston!

      • Eleonora says:

        A good thing about Instagram/Tiktok is that anyone can become famous without gatekeepers deciding who gets to be in movies, magazines or tv like the old days.

        Pre metoo, they had way too much power and that was often abused.
        Also, there is far less interference: no telling women how to dress, look or talk, what artist name to use etc

        If a 23 year old does funny movies with her cat and many people like it, she no longer has to bend to some old guy’s will before she can get an audience.

      • thinking aloud says:

        Once the influencers get their Netflix deals, I think they could be subject to some interference from powerful people. Once you sign on the dotted line of a contract, I don’t see how there wouldn’t be pressures placed on the person to live up to the terms. And we don’t really know for sure whether there aren’t other weird pressures these influencers might be subject to coming into a meeting with power players. Maybe we’ll hear about these pressures 10 years from now.

        Even on Tik-Tok and Instagram when influencers are coming up, there is a fair amount of superficiality in terms of appearance, how to look, and all kinds of strange posing. Maybe there’s the random, wholesome person who does cat videos who gets that Netflix deal, but there’s also a fair amount of looks-focused, provocative content (which I personally don’t get. It looks like some of the content is made to appeal to men — so I’m not entirely convinced these influencers are still not being persuaded towards achieving a certain physical standard to catch the attention of men.

      • Eleonora says:

        I was talking about before they get an audience.

        Only a small number get Netflix deals. Plenty of people can now get an audience of thousands of followers for all kinds of things. This was almost impossible not that long ago, without gatekeepers getting in their way.

        There are way more people with a great diversity of topics that can get an audience now than just one random person with her cat: people who are starting some kind of sport, painters, fans of groups from many different countries, dancers, singers, people who talk about their issues from a different viewpoint than what was shown, artists, scientists, language learners… the list is almost endless.

        I’m also extremely happy that it is easier to find artists of all kinds from all over the world, instead of a select few (often just from the UK or US), that used to be presented on mainstream media.

    • km says:

      agree to disagree..the examples thr Op used didn’t make sense… actors/musicians/artists have a foundatuon if talent that nearly all influencers wished they had….

  2. outoftheshadows says:

    I think the sad thing about Jennifer Aniston is that she can’t ever focus on what she’s happy with–it’s like she got super-famous as a young person and has spent the rest of her life bitter about not having range, not having roles, etc. If she’s being honored for her philanthropy, why isn’t she talking about what she’s done for various causes that she believes in? Why isn’t she discussing things she has produced that star other people? And why oh why is she comparing herself to Dolly Parton? Because none of us mortals ever look good in comparison to Dolly Parton.

    All I’m saying is, you’re talking to a reporter, try not complaining about your uber-privileged life. Save that for your best friends and try to be grateful for what you have.

    • Snuffles says:

      Maybe she did talk about her philanthropy but it was cut out. Maybe Celebitchy only highlighted her personal life quotes.

    • Becks1 says:

      If you read the article, she doesn’t come across as bitter at all.

    • Sue Denim says:

      I’m prob projecting but I read it more as a reflection w the benefit of hindsight, a lot of us women around her age have been taking stock of our lives and careers in recent years, esp post metoo and through the pandemic, just sort of assessing the way things turned out, the expectations we had, the promises the culture seemed to have made but then with such high barriers, so much higher than for men, so we tried harder, plus the pressures to conform to ever more unrealistic standards. And the cognitive dissonance — I mean she bagged the so-called dream guy of the times, lucky her we all thought, and look now at who he really was… I can imagine walking into my old office from the 90s and feeling similarly… It’s a relief in some ways to see it all more clearly but v sad in other ways… sigh…

    • mia girl says:

      I don’t know… I read the full article yesterday and didn’t really pick up what you are saying.
      If anything I came away thinking she seemed pretty comfortable to speak candidly and that she’s really happy with her career and life. She still seems to have acting goals, but it didn’t seem like she was bitter.

      Anyway, all the interviewee questions were focused on her acting/entertainment career. There really wasn’t a focus on philanthropy or even her non-acting businesses.

    • Wendy says:

      Ah yes, the old “shut up and be grateful”, based on cherry-picked quotes posted in a gossip column that depends on your clicks and comments for their revenue.

    • thinking aloud says:

      She sounds content to me.

      She simply sounds like an older person who tells you how she viewed the ups and downs of life that came her way (no one’s life is completely up all the way). Since someone is asking, she’s sharing.

      I think there’s some wisdom to take away from older actresses who tell you how they dealt with something. Or at least I’m more more likely to take their perspective on life more seriously than someone who writes a memoir at 21.

      Not sure if it’s the pandemic that’s affected everyone’s perspective, but it sounds like she’s reached that point older people get to when they’re like “yeah, this is my reality. Deal with it. I’ve earned my place — I don’t really need to explain stuff anymore” (almost every woman seems to mention that questions circulate around their relationship status and ability to mother so on this issue I would think most women can relate to Aniston). Once someone hits that point in their life, my general assumption is that they’re happy enough within the reality of their own situations.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      I gotta agree with all the other posters. you should really read the whole article.

      she doesn’t sound bitter at ALL…quite the contrary. and the only comparison she makes to Dolly is the “no kids” aspect, that’s it.

      I came away from that interview thinking “I WANT TO BE HER FRIEND!”

    • Kitten says:

      I really don’t see how you can say that she’s bitter from reading this TBH. Also, she actually does have decent range for someone who got pigeon-holed into comedy really early in her career. She basically said that she’s largely had to make those opportunities happen for herself, which makes sense given how Hollywood is.

      IDK. I didn’t think she came across as bad here.

      • Sof says:

        I agree that she is a good actress. Sometimes I wonder if deciding to mantain the same style instead of experimenting with her looks is what got her stuck in comedies, after all these years people still think she is Rachel in real life. Remember how during the promotion of Horible Bosses all she talked about was her dark hair?

    • outoftheshadows says:

      okay, I’ll read the whole article then!

    • canichangemyname says:

      Nothing she said comes off as bitter to me at all. She’s honestly never come off as bitter to me – 17 years or whatever ago, she did express disappointment and hurt over the end of her marriage, which seemed, idk, human? But I’ve never seen her as particularly hung up on it or anything else. I honestly like her from her interviews and can’t understand the shade she gets from this site. It’s nicer now, but WOW, this site got kind of Perez Hilton-level mean to her back in the day. She’s just a woman doing a job and talking about stuff she likes – I’ve never seen the harm.

  3. Sammie says:

    Whilst I 100% agree with her on the baby question, I feel like she’s skipping over the fact that she (and her team) sustained that as a focus for 15 years and still is. PR teams are there to guide the content of interviews. She really hasn’t done anything to push forward the narrative and evolve her public image beyond 2005.

    Regardless, two women have ended up being targeted by the media over a man who can’t even be alone with his own children. He’s the real villain and it’s high time he was held accountable for fuelling misogynistic narratives.

    • jen d. says:

      Exactly this.

      I actually think her image is changing a bit, but the baby thing was something she actively participated in.

    • Becks1 says:

      I disagree that her team pushed it for 15 years, but I do think that they did push it for a while that she was going to have kids and wanted kids etc – but I also get it. Remember how she was destroyed and vilified in the aftermath of her separation/divorce from Pitt? The narrative was that he had no choice but to leave her for Jolie because Pitt wanted kids and Angelina already had them and then she got pregnant with Shiloh etc and Angelina was the earth mother than Pitt needed as his wife and all Aniston cared about was her career. That narrative became so prevalent that we still see strands of it on posts today about Jen or Angelina – that Jen is selfish and manipulative and only thinks about herself and that’s why she never had kids.

      of course there was a pushback on that; I always thought that the answer should have been that it was none of anyone’s business, but her team went with the whole “yes Jen wants kids” which may have been true at the time, who knows.

      Based on her comments in this interview though, I do wonder if she did really want kids and tried to have them and couldn’t and so that’s why post divorce she said things like “yes I do want kids” and now just glosses over that.

      • equality says:

        Sounds more like Pitts’ PR to justify himself.

      • WithTheAmerican says:

        I always found this so painful as a woman. Many women can’t have children – for Brad the Horrid Dad to put out there that he needed to cheat on his wife and leave her for the most beautiful woman on earth because MBWOE could get pregnant was just a low low low blow.

        Maybe the culture is changing but I doubt it. Back then she 2as absolutely destroyed as deserving to be betrayed because she was not a “real woman” who wanted kids.

        My hot take is both she and Angelina suffered as a result of Brad and his brat pack of industry manipulators. They keep us all focused on one of these two women being bad. When in reality…

      • Becks1 says:

        @equality – oh I absolutely think it was his PR to justify his behavior, but it still became the prevailing narrative around the divorce and around Jen as a person. So I can understand the pushback from her and her team.

      • Kristin says:

        I was going to say the same thing. That baby thing was pushed ON her, not by her PR team. Every interview she was asked about babies and children and over time you could see her visible frustration with constantly being asked that question. I’ve always liked Jennifer Aniston and she didn’t deserve all that horseshit that was thrown her way after Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s affair and subsequent relationship. She was largely thrown under the bus to cover for the bad behavior of two other people and that annoys me to no end. I know this is a very pro-Angelina site, but she was no innocent bystander back then and it wasn’t Jennifer Aniston that repeatedly opened her mouth to the press to talk about her divorce. Rather, Brad and Angelina were the ones encouraging the press with pap pics and “family” photo spreads and interviews, like Angelina saying she’d love to sit down with Jennifer and talk to her, or saying that she was excited for her and Brad’s kids to one day watch the film that they fell in love while making. I feel that over time some people have forgotten how all of that really went down back then and it’s a shame because Jennifer, despite being completely thrown under the bus by her cheating ex, always behaved like a class act. And in my opinion she still behaves like a class act for the most part. Yes, she’s not perfect and she may be kind of vanilla, but I don’t see anything wrong with that. I’m pretty vanilla myself:)

      • Carmen says:

        @Kristin: if I remember correctly, Angelina was specifically asked in a Vogue interview if she would ever want a sit-down with Aniston, and she replied, “That would be her decision and I would welcome it.” End of discussion.

      • Persephone says:

        @Kristin Agree 110%.

      • Brandy Alexander says:

        I was wondering if I was the only one who saw that – Based on the text it seemed like she was about to say she wasn’t able to have kids and then caught herself.

  4. Noki says:

    I have thought about this before,that who actually knows if these women who are constantly on womb watch can actually have kids. Imagine how heartbreaking it is being talked about if they cant.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Aniston has spoken about her mother before in a less than flattering light. Lord knows her mother was awful to her. Generally speaking many people choose to be child free because they didn’t have great childhoods/relationship with a parent. She’s also in a vain industry where keeping your body young and fit is everything for actresses without range.

      I believe Aniston is child free.
      But we are both assuming. End of the day Aniston never had kids and she is enjoying a life of wealth and privilege with her dogs. Living the dream.

    • thinking aloud says:

      In this interview, it seemed like she came close to mentioning there could have been a medical reason for not having kids, but I’m not sure if I’m reading too much into it or imagining it.

      • Brandy Alexander says:

        I thought the same. It seemed like she almost said it then caught herself.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Maybe, but it doesn’t matter if Aniston wanted kids at some point because she doesn’t seem upset by being child free. She invites the tabloid and social media speculation on having biological children to possible adoption. She does this through her PR favorite magazines that actively promote her and engages. Not random rags that are unauthorized by her spokespersons.

        I’m childfree and I can’t carry to term. Not every woman wishes to be a mother.

    • February pisces says:

      I think if she desperately wanted kids she would have found a way to have them. She has plenty of money where she could have had any fertility treatments she needed, or surrogacy of even adoption. Lots of celebrities have pr relationships where they are basically set up with someone. She has everything at her fingertips so I do think she could have made it happen if she wanted. I guess she chose not to peruse it. I think she’s content with her life as it is.

      • Anne Call says:

        I read this week that Daryl Hannah and Neil Young are having a child together. DH is 61! I was amazed. Modern science…

  5. Anne says:

    Is it bad that this interview and her over-it-don’t-give-a-cr@p vibe totally resonate? Speak your mind, Jen! I’m so old and tired.

  6. Case says:

    I’m in my late 20s — part of the “social media age” demographic — and don’t really consider TikTokers part of the film or TV industry, so I can’t say I agree with her. There’s still glamour in Hollywood — plenty of actors keep to themselves and don’t share everything on social media, you only see them at premieres and award shows, etc. No, it’s not the same as it was at the peak of Old Hollywood, but that has been the case for 40+ years.

  7. Eve says:

    Strange cover…it looks like she’s toothless.

    • Carmen says:

      It’s not a flattering cover at all. I’m surprised they went with it.

    • JBones says:

      And ALWAYS with her hair in her face. I used to use my hair as curtains in my teens when I was crippled with insecurities from cycstic acne. I wonder if she’s self conscious about her face? Love that power pic of her strutting in hat, crop top and those pants! Fab.

      • whatWHAT? says:

        her mother was ruthlessly mean about her looks, from a young age. I suspect that she DOES use her hair to “hide” her face sometimes. I mean, it’s one thing to get teased on the playground but it’s an entirely different feeling when your mother, who is supposed to be in your corner, tells you how unattractive you are.

      • Anne Call says:

        I got really distracted by her hair in the Morning Show. Seemed like she must have stopped and made it perfect every few minutes of shooting the show. Really wanted to yell at her and say, you like great, just put it up in a ponytail and stop fidgeting with it!

  8. Sofia says:

    I get her comments about TikTok “actors” and her annoyance with “influencer culture”. I don’t like it much either and do think there’s too many influences getting into movies/shows without any real talent.

    But I don’t agree with her basically saying Hollywood was full of talented people before that. Nepotism existed before TikTok and still does. There are non-talented actors and actresses working (including some of her peers) who are only in the industry because of money or connections.

  9. Adrian says:

    Those random Tiktokers at least have a shot at fame w/o leg up from industry relatives. People who are nepotism hire should not be allowed to comment on what is glamorous or not.

  10. girl_ninja says:

    Did she also actively build that tabloid persona into her celebrity/actress brand?

    She did, as did actors before her and OF her generation. I won’t hold it against her or other actors like Angelina Jolie, Sienna Miller, Nicole Kidman and the like.

    She’s right about the lack of glamour too.

  11. lunchcoma says:

    I remember the late 90s and early 2000s. We had pointless celebrities then too, and I don’t think things then were much more glamorous. I suspect things are less glamorous for Aniston, but that’s because she’s older and working less and not the focus of attention anymore.

    It seems like Aniston has decided not to do the aging gracefully thing, which is kind of a shame. I can certainly understand why she’d avoid the internet if it’s not already a big part of her life, but part of passing on things that are important to younger people is to be careful about judging things you don’t know much about.

    As for people getting cast based on followers, that seems ludicrous, but then I think about reasons people have gotten roles in the past.

    • thinking aloud says:

      I think the actors of 90s and 2000s did seem more glamourous. Not sure if that’s because there might have been less over-sharing.

      The pointless celebrities might have over-shared, but I feel like people laughed at them or they weren’t taken seriously. I could be wrong though.

    • Korra says:

      Reality TV stars were everywhere in the early 2000s!

  12. K8typat says:

    She might get better roles if she were a good actor.

    • minx says:

      Thank you..

    • whatWHAT? says:

      well, she did win a SAG award so clearly her colleagues think she’s good. she’s also been nominated for Emmys in both comedy (winner) and drama, been nominated for Golden Globes for both (winning in comedy). Granted, she’s also been nominated for Razzies…but so have other actresses who have won Oscars.

      I think she’s better than a lot of people give her credit for. she was really good in Horrible Bosses (playing against type) and she’s gotten good reviews for her dramatic work, including her current hit show.

      I mean, she’s no Meryl, but she’s also not Jessica Alba.

      • Mila says:

        Thank you Aniston’s publicist. She’ll never be the go to for great roles, her next film is Murder Mystery 2, what a joke

      • whatWHAT? says:

        no, she’ll never be the go-to for great roles, but neither will a lot of other actors/actresses, and that’s OK. not everyone is Oscar-caliber. some of the best actors and actresses in each generation are considered “character actors”, and never get “great roles”. however, she has created a “great role” for herself, which is what a smart and resourceful person does. Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock did that too.

        as for her next film, yes, she is doing another silly/stupid Netflix movie with a good friend of hers, and likely getting paid very well for it. she also has season two of her hit show with the “great role”, and another couple of movies in the pipe. it’s ok if you don’t like her, not everyone does. but enough people do that she’s still working, and on her own terms. sounds like success to me.

  13. thinking aloud says:

    I don’t have a strong opinion on social media influencers as people, but I can see why she wouldn’t like the platforms much much. If you prefer sitting through a full-length movie or even a half-hour sitcom with a storyline, I think Tik-Tok is a little dull. The only time I can sit through a Tik-Tok or Reel is when I personally know the person doing it. Otherwise, watching some random stranger do a dance trend feels like a waste of time. Even when I personally know the person, I half-wonder why I’m sitting through their video. Some movies aren’t great, but I prefer watching something with a narrative.

    • Kitten says:

      I think it’s way more politically-engaging for young people than say, Twitter and anything that mobilizes the kids to vote is good with me.

      • thinking aloud says:

        I think it’s fine for that reason (mobilization for politics). We all have different uses of social media — not everyone uses it to become an entertainer.

        But I don’t feel like watching the 10 second videos that have a person lip-syncing to a song, and that’s essentially it. I could just go watch an actual music video with a real singer for that. If we’re talking about strictly the pursuit of entertainment (and no other reason), then I can see why people complain about Tik-Tok.

  14. Esmerelda says:

    I appreciate that she’s so outspoken about vaccines. And I understand the drive to achieve more professionally, even if you were by some measure successful. She’s rich and famous, but she’s not known as a great actress, and no one wrote or found her a role where she could show us more: Jolie had Girl, Interrupted, Theron had Monster, Kidman is a great actress, Watts had Mulholland Dr. She’s right, she’s not in that club… and I think it’s ok to admit that she’s a bit wistful about it.

  15. Sof says:

    I agree with almost everything that she said (also remember her active role in vilifying Angelina) except the part when she talks about how the industry has changed. It sucks that actors are hired according to their metrics on social media, but before that it was all about who sold tickets. If an amazing actor made a movie that tanked at the box office then everyone got nervous, if it happened twice in a row then that person had to take some time off.

    • thinking aloud says:

      I think measuring by box-office makes some sense. The money being spent might give some indication of whether people will be actually willing to go to a movie theater to watch that person (sort of — if it’s not a comic book movie anyway).

      But the correlation between social media metrics on Tik-Tok (as opposed to Netflix where an actual movie is shown) and being able to get people to a theater or even a stream a video in their house seems a bit unclear to me.

      • Sof says:

        I understand that the majority of Tik-Tok viewers are kids and teenagers, those tend to be the ones who watch movies or tv shows just to see their idols, it doesn’t matter if their screen time is 5 seconds. I could be wrong.

      • remarks says:

        I’m wondering if Gen Z actually idolizes who they see on Tik-Tok or just watch the (free) videos out of boredom. I’ll fall down a rabbit hole on YouTube when I’m bored and because the videos are free, but I wouldn’t necessarily pay good money to see YouTubers in a movie.

  16. Isa says:

    Dolly Parton chose a career over having children and I’m sure she’s probably gotten comments about it over the years, because that’s what people do.

    • EliseM says:

      @Isa not true for Dolly. She has said in MANY interviews that God did not bless her and Carl with children of their own. She wanted kids and just could not have them. The missing link is Jen not mentioning that Dolly has put on record ” I cant have kids”, while Jen dances around the question. While it isn’t anyone’s business if she wants kids or not, like Dolly, she can put a final nail in that coffin if she wanted too.

      • Huma says:

        Maybe her situation isn’t that cut and dry. Plenty of people who wanted children don’t end up with them despite it being physically possible. She obviously doesn’t want to get into the weeds as to how her exactly her situation played out, and if she could have technically had children she probably doesn’t want to lie about her medical situation.

        People talk about how she could have made it happen if she really wanted it, since she had the money for treatment, but not everyone can go through multiples miscarriages or failed IVF rounds and keep trying. For some people the toll it takes is just too much and they have to choose their sanity.

        For others the timing just never works out. Infertility takes its toll on relationships, and plenty of people lose their partner before they have a viable pregnancy. Then you have to find someone else, or face going it alone, and maybe that won’t work out either, and then time runs out.

        Back in her Friends days there were rumours of miscarriages, then her marriage blew up rather spectacularly, then she didn’t meet the right guy. Is it really that hard to imagine why it might not have happened for her despite her wanting it and it being possible?

  17. lena horne says:

    She is good in a comedy.

    Not sure why she always had to have her nipples showing.

    But she is still working and still gets plenty of press.

  18. AC says:

    @Kristin The only reason Jolie constantly spoke about it, because at that time, that’s all they asked her. She wasn’t out randomly speaking about Jennifer. Please, why would she? Sorry, I know this is a Jolie site is ridiculous and I am tired of people saying that because they have a different opinion of this bland lady.

  19. Meg says:

    I don’t even think red carpets are as big of a deal as they used to be because its no longer just one of the few ways that large of an audience has access to a celeb anymore
    Its also why hosting award shows hasnt been as big of a deal anymore either, why do all that rehearsal when you can access a large audience in other ways without making as many compromises a comedian has to make when hosting a network award show

    • thinking aloud says:

      I think the pandemic has affected some of my viewing habits. It’s like the days are bleeding into each other, and I don’t care to keep track of which awards show is on anymore.

      I’m vaguely aware of some of the influencers who are getting Netflix deals (Addison Rae?), but maybe I don’t know who they are well enough to make the effort to see what they’re wearing on the red carpet.

  20. km says:

    I could not name one influencer …I just don’t care enough to be a part if all that…

  21. Jayna says:

    I think Jen is a very good actress with the right roles. In Season 1, she was really fantastic in The Morning Show. She deserved the Emmy nomination. Season 2 was a letdown as far as some of the story line and the ending, but she did an excellent job again. But I loved her wardrobe in it, and I have always thought she has a dynamite figure. I would love some of the clothes from Season 1 and 2.

    I believe she and Justin tried to have a baby and probably in vitro also. It was something I gleaned from another interview, or the way she said something. I can say one thing about Jennifer. She is so much freer in her 50s. The woman has tremendous friendships and appears to have the love of male friends and female friends. She used to be so much more guarded, and she has developed a much more open attitude in interviews and is much more comfortable.

    As far as acting, here’s an example from further back in time when people say she’s only good in rom-coms. I thought this scene from The Break-Up was extremely authentic. And I loved her hair this color, instead of the light blonde.

  22. Gen says:

    I think Aniston has faced an uphill battle in her personal life and she lets us know that here. I think it was a very honest interview…and yet still we start comparing her to Angelina Jolie. It is clear from her quotes about returning to the Friends set, that the idyllic life that she thought she would have after Friends was shattered. She behaved with complete class and dignity and in my opinion, is a wonderful example of a 50 something woman.

  23. Fanciful says:

    Like many long series, the friends cast got very lucky. I don’t think she’s a good actress, she’s fine in some roles, but 90% are meh. I’m absolutely sure she knows how lucky she is. And her career /media interest was sustained because of the baby talk (which she participated in) and sad Jen, woe is me media promoted by her people. Otherwise she’d have faded with the end of friends. Can’t believe they’re making another murder mystery, that was tragic.

  24. Hope says:

    This statement is so elitist. Whether it’s tiktokers or Instagram influencers people have to start from somewhere. Just the same way she was given a chance everyone deserves one.