Pitt is quite simian.

You’re supposed to be a box office expert and you come up with “Does Jen sell more tickets than Brad?” Are you kidding me? Looking at Pitt’s recent canon of work, were you seriously expecting films like Babel, The Assassination of Jesse James, Burn After Reading and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to have huge box office openings and end results? Pitt himself has said he’s no longer interested in having “the big hits”. He’s interested in working with great directors, screenwriters and people who want to tell intelligent and thoughtful stories. Go to Newsweek.com and watch the videos of the recent Oscar rountable and see for yourself. Pitt says, “I have nothing left to prove.” and that he’s chosing movies based on what interests him and that he believes if it interests him, then there’ll be “a few others out there” who’ll like the movies as well. His case in point was TAOJJ and he stated that it was on the books as a failure, but HE loved the movie (as did others) and that was enough for him.

The fact is – his movies have ALWAYS done better in foreign markets than in the US. Look at who Pitt has chosen to work with since his split with Aniston -

- Hollywood newcomers Alejandro González Iñárritu & Andrew Dominik – both doing cutting edge, heartfelt films with meaning and a message. (Foreign BO: Babel – $101,027,345, TAOJJ – $11,092,627)

- The Coen Brothers – never known for their prowess at the box office, yet their critics favorites and Oscar darlings. (Foreign BO – Burn After Reading – $94,051,169)

- David Fincher – not the most liked guy in Hollywood. A director that goes his own way and frequently tells stories that outside people’s comfort zones. (Foreign BO so far – $38,300,000)

Oceans’s 13, Pitt’s lone light-hearted movie in the last 4 years did great box office ($117 domestic, $194MIL foreign for a total of $311MIL) and far better than the Vaughn/Aniston film The Break Up ($119MIL domestic, $86MIL foreign for a total of $205MIL). Some would argue that the movie is an ensemble piece, but the fact is, that movie is heavily marketed on Pitt’s appeal, not just domestically, but abroad. Because if you look at George Clooney’s box office numbers it’s more than obvious that HE is not the reason people went to see the movie. Clooney could barely garner a $50MIL box office for Michael Clayton, which had a high Rotten Tomatoes score of about 94% Fresh. So those Oceans movies weren’t sold on the basis of George Clooney’s star power – it was Brad Pitt’s name that got people to the theater.

If you look at the internation box office on the above films, they all outstrip the US ticket sales. As you well know, in Hollywood these days that’s much more important than an actor’s domestic sales.

Conversely if you look at what could laughingly be called Aniston’s “resume” – her films are light, predictable romcoms that are easily thrown away. Plus, Aniston is not THE STAR in the films you’ve listed above. These movies are NOT being sold on her back. And by the way, I notice you conveniently left out another of Aniston’s clunkers – Derailed.

- The Break UP – A Vince Vaughn vehicle that was marketed on the strength of Aniston’s then-recent divorce from Pitt. Something she played heavily on in her promotion of the film. Continually throwing Angelina Jolie to the wolves even though she knew full well that Pitt dumping her had little to do with Jolie and a lot to do with how much they’d grown apart and their divergent dreams of the future. (Foreign BO – $86,296,411)

- Friends With Money – An ensemble piece that barely registered in the domestic market. It was one of Aniston’s rare forays into “serious” films and it fell flat at the box office – even for an indie. (Foreign BO – $4,876,807)

- Rumor Has It – One of Aniston’s few lead roles and it too failed to ignite at the box office. A $43MIL cume for a movie that cost $55MIL to make? A movie that had a lot of backstage shenanigans and that Aniston herself has referred to as “wretched”? Not a good example of her box office appeal. (Foreign BO – $45,933,300)

- Marley & Me – Yet another movie where Aniston is NOT the lead. In fact she plays third fiddle – to 22 dogs and Owen Wilson. This is a movie that had a built-in success ratio. The book it’s based on sold over 5 million copies. The movie trailers and posters featured the dog and occasionally Owen Wilson. Aniston was barely seen in any of the promo material. If she hadn’t given 400 interviews and dragged Pitt & Jolie’s names into each interview, followed by posing nearly naked on the cover of GQ, then the majority of the public would have had no idea she was even in the movie based on the ads. So how is that a success for Aniston? It’s a success for John Groban – who’s book gave Aniston her first box office success in over 2 years.

- He’s Just Not That Into You – Here’s another ensemble movie. Aniston is NOT featured in the tv trailers even though she is used on the poster. This movie was NOT being marketed at a “Jennifer Aniston” movie and it also is based on a best-selling book. And then there’s the fact that Drew Barrymore herself has been very successful at the box office – and SHE is featured prominently in not just the trailers, but the posters and the marketing and magazine campaign waged by the studio. Saying that Aniston put butts in seats at this movie is like saying she’s responsible for the success of Jim Carrey’s “Bruce Almighty” and Ben Stiller’s “Along Came Polly” or even Vince Vaughn’s “The Break Up”. You can say it – but that don’t mean it’s true!

While stirring up this ridiculous controvesy you fail to mention that Aniston CANNOT get any feature films greenlit by a major studio – period. Her name alone DOES NOT make studio execs sit up and take notice. It’s more like cringe and hope someone’s not kidding. In 2007 and 2008 Aniston’s shot 4 films – 2 of which were lead roles for her (Management and Travelign), neither of which are being released in the US, were NOT studio films. The films were for some smaller companies, one of the films she was a production partner on (Management). The two movies Aniston did that were studio projects (Marley & Me and He’s Just Not That Into You), were both based on popular best-selling books with a ready made audience and ther were NOT lead roles for her. So deeming them HER films is ridiculous.

Aniston’s box office appeal is very limited. If it weren’t then she wouldn’t have had to take the film “Management” to the Toronto Film Festivial in hopes of finding a distributor – there were no takers at that time. Months later a small distributor (Image Entertainment) finally bought the film and intends to put it into very limited release in half a dozen FOREIGN MARKETS (where Aniston’s films barely register), which is very similar to what happened to Jessica Simpson’s last few trips before the camera. The only movie Aniston has been able to get funding for since what you term as successful box office with Marley & Me and HJNTIY is yet another romcom with overtures of her real life – a story about a 40 year-old woman desperate to have a baby and resorts to in vitro fertilization. The movie is being co-produced by her own production company, but, and here’s the important part – IS NOT A MAJOR STUDIO RELEASE. It’s for some small operation called Mandate Pictures and being directed by the guys who did “Blades of Glory”.

Having said all that, the crux of the matter is this – Will Pitt’s choices in films continue to get him $20MIL paydays on less artistic projects? Probably not, but he doesn’t care because it’s no longer about the money for him. He could easily be doing nothing but crowd pleasing films like Will Smith does and Tom Cruise would like to go back to doing, but he chose another direction for his career. It’s astounding moronic that a so-called expert would then choose to compare his ticket sales with those of his ex-wife who is doing everything she can, at 40 mind you, an age when better actresses than she have to prostrate themselves at the feet of studio execs just to get work, to be seen as a “movie star” and therefore the equal of not just her ex-husband, but the woman the public believes he left her for.

So my question to you is – If Anston sells more movie tickets than Brad Pitt – why can’t she get major studios to greenlight projects with her in a lead role? Brad Pitt doesn’t have that problem. So obviously the studios disagree with your assessment of ticket sales and who’s a bigger draw at the box office. While Pitt continues to work with the cream of the directing and writing crop, Aniston is over by the pond mucking about in the sludge looking for worms so she can go fishing with the big boys. At 40 she’s tilting at windmills, but I hesitate to say that lest she get the notion to do a romcom based on Don Quixote. I can see it now – Donna Quixote: Cougar At Large.

Dawn -

Get a grip. The Forbes list you’re referring to took into account movies in which Aniston co-starred with Vince Vaughn, Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller. Those movies were not successful because of her presence. They did not simply list movies in which Aniston got paid an $8MIL salary and bombed at the box office – including Derailed & Rumor Has It. They did not look for movies in which Aniston had to carry the movie. If they did that they’d have to go back to things like The Good Girl, which she did not make a large salary on and which didn’t do very well at the box office. Therefore the Forbes analysis of Aniston’s Salary-to-Box-Office-Gross ratio is highly skewed. If you remove the movies in which Aniston co-starred with a major male comedic actor her box office gross wouldn’t equally her personal net worth from her earnings & residuals of 10 years on Friends – and those people pulled in close to $100MIL over that 10 year period!

I simply pointed out, in detail for those Aniston fans who refuse to see the truth about their idol, that Steve Mason’s comparison is ridiculous. Why didn’t he compare Aniston’s box office numbers to women like Kate Hudson, Katherine Heigl, Jennifer Garner, etc., who also stick mainly to the romcom genre? It’s not like Aniston’s movies cover a broad range of subjects like Pitt’s do. His reason for choosing Pitt is the same reason the tabloids write sensationalized stories about Pitt & Jolie – to make money, or in Mason’s case, to get more hits for his blog.

Dawn -

To answer your question about how some of Pitt’s “art films” get made – yes, he has a production deal with Paramount and before that Warner Brothers. However, Pitt had nothing to do with the CCOBB deal. Would it have gotten made if he didn’t sign on? Probably not unless they had bagged another male star with huge international appeal.

TAOJJ was a Plan B project from the days at Warner Brothers. It’s also a movie that Warner Brothers did their best to ruin by failing to market and promote it properly. If you paid attention at the time you’d remember the amount of frustration from critics all over the country who complained about Warner’s refusal to provide early screenings of the movie. And the movie barely played around the country at all. I live in Missouri and if a movie about Jesse James starring a Missourian played anywhere you’d think it would be here. But no. We practically had to beg Warner’s to get the movie here. The people in St. Joseph, MO (James’ hometown) practically had to mortgage the local government buildings to get Warner’s to screen the movie early there. It was ridiculous how far Warners went to squash the success of a great movie – whatever their reasons were.

Still, if you look at the other movies on the list above – Babel, Burn After Reading and Oceans 13 – Pitt and Plan B had nothing to do with the produdciton of those movies. Mr. Mason over-simplified things by simply talking about domestic box office. That is NOT the be-all, end-all for the studios anymore and hasn’t been for years. It’s about the foreign market potential and DVD sales and rentals. That’s where the studios make their money. The bottom line is – Pitt’s name on a project gets a movie greenlit. Aniston’s name doesn’t. Therefore, Pitt has not only more clout at the box office, but a hell of a lot more clout with the suits who run the studios.

Nice picture. That is what Aniston is known for, and all she should be. Boing.

Let me try this again because it seems that some words triggers moderation.

There is no way you can compare Early Grayce, Floyd, Jeffrey Goines, Mickey O’Neil, Jessie James just to name a few to Aniston’s variations of Rachel Green. Brad Pitt is Tyler Durden!! Fight Club has a cult following.

Its simply an insult to Pitt’s talent and body of work to compare him to Aniston’s.

Let’s see, Aniston’s claim to critical acclaim is The Good Girl which her acting coach had to resort to putting weights on her to curb her Rachel mannerisms. Sadly, the extent of her transformation, is her being a not-so made up Rachel.

This is the same Aniston who I would have to say insisted on keeping the straight hair, tanned look because Aggie Rodgers was able to put everyone on the 80’s look.

Respect from Peers

From the crew members in his movies, Pitt is respected and liked. You often hear words describing him as having that blue collar vibe. He’s very much welcome in film screenings of the crews for his movies. He’s well liked within the industry from the bigwigs to the lowest rung in the food chain.

In contrast Aniston disses her films namely Rumor Has It and Derailed. And that bruhaha with Ted Griffin left such a sour taste in many people’s mouth that I wouldn’t doubt if she’s made some enemies then. HW is a small town and there are people who have long memories. Despite her close relationship with Jules Asner thru mutual friends, I would bet my new pick-up truck if Soderbergh will even work with her. The same goes for Clooney and Costner.

Maybe you should ask her whatever happened to the following films to name a few?

Wanted – the one with Meryl Streep attached when it was still with Plan B. She keeps on saying it’s in the works. MS had to send word she’s no longer attached to the film.

The Senator’s Wife – this has been in development since IRRC 2005.