comments from TMZ site

[Guest]

I sincerely hope that the Cinemascore data is true. If it is true they we can all say good-bye to Angie's career because her only successful movies have been action movies. She cannot do action movies anymore - everyone that went to see Salt (except loons of course) were laughing at the thought of Angelina doing those stunts and beating up men twice her size. It was too unbelievable even for people willing to suspend their disbelief during a movie. My husband watched it and was laughing when she jumped on that moving tractor-trailer. She is too old, brittle and ragged to be thought of as an action heroine anymore. I read countless comments from men wondering where the Angie of Lara Croft has gone.

Take a look at the data the loon posted:

“Wanted,” about a team of super-assassins, skewed slightly male at 52% and slightly younger, with 51% of the aud under age 30. It also played well to Hispanic and African-American auds.

Does anyone honestly think young males will flock to her movies in the future?? No they won't - she has lost her sexy, edgy appeal and they are all turned off by the fact that she has 6 kids. My nephews who are teenagers loved her in Wanted - my sister was watching the Golden Globes and when they saw Angie they were horrified - couldn't believe how bad she looked (that was when she wore that white dress with the red thing right) - said she looked like a vampire (I kid you not). We all know the audience which goes to action movies have never went to see one of Angie's dramatic roles (AMH and Changeling). There will always be someone younger and sexier to take her place and it will happen.

So thank you loon for posting that data - you posted it to brag but in doing so showed the rest of us that Angie's career is pretty much over. Action heroine is over and theater-goers are not interested in her dramatic roles. What exactly does that leave?? NADA

BTW - Would love to see the breakdown of the audience that went to see Salt if anyone can find it

[Guest]

Fail, loon. You really need to give this up. Once again, there is no citation for the CinemaScore "data."
What happened is this:

1) Nikki Finke lied about these numbers being from CinemaScore in her original review.
2) This is memorialized in a post copied from her blog at the time it was written. It is on this site in its entirety, and it clearly states that CinemaScore is the source for these numbers.
3) Once that lie was brought to the attention of Entertainment Weekly (which "owns" the CinemaScore data), EW's Legal was presumably brought in to "talk" to Nikki Finke. Or Nikki Finke just went back in and changed the data before she could get into legal trouble over it.
4) Now Nikki Finke's site has changed the review to more accurately reflect the fact that it is Finke's opinion that Miss Voight was the draw for "Wanted" and that this opinion is not based on any polling data from CinemaScore.
5) Meanwhile, all the review blogs had already integrated Finke's original misinformation into their reviews of the movie.
6) Since, to the best of my knowledge, Finke never made her lies public, these blogs would have no way of knowing they were quoting fraudulant data, and therefore, didn't "fix" the reviews.

You see, this is why so many of what you call "haters" simply don't believe what we hear about spittnho, We've seen things like this happen way too often.

Great job, anti! You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt here that the stat was falsified. At least Nikke took it down, but that doesn't excuse her putting it up in the first place without verifying the information directly from the source. That stat smelled fishy from the start. Granted, I am an anti, but that was obvious, obvious propaganda. It looked like Jolie going out to prove that Jolie was popular. It completely defied common sense, but then Jolie has always has always been brazen in her lies.

[Guest]

http://www.deadline.com/2008/06/wall-e-and-wanted-open-big-at-box-office/


Filmgoers Wild For ‘Wall-E’ And ‘Wanted’: Angelina Jolie Posts Best Opening Ever; Lonely Droid Debut Is Pixar’s 3rd Biggest

...

So Wanted, Universal’s Angelina Jolie/James McAvoy starrer, debuted to $19.1M Friday and $17.5M Saturday from 3,175 venues for a $51.1M weekend. It marks a new franchise for the studio which expected only $35+M from this stylish summer actioner fueled by the Matrix-like high octane provided by hot Russian director Timur Bekmambetov. It turned out to be the best June opening ever for an R-rated movie, beating Knocked Up‘s $30.6M, and the 6th highest R-rated opening of all time (behind The Matrix Reloaded, The Passion Of The Christ, 300, Hannibal, and Sex And The City) as well as the 3rd biggest R-rated action film (behind The Matrix Reloaded‘s $91.7M, and 300‘s $70.9M). It’s also the biggest opening ever for a live-action Angelina movie and she proved a big draw: the studio said the main reasons given for choosing to see Wanted were the action (67%) and Jolie (61%). Exit polling showed the audience breakdown was 52%/48% male to female, 51%/49% under age 30 to over age 30.

Still not the source -- in fact, if Nikki Finke is the one saying this, then it is almost certainly a lie. This source document also states that the STUDIO (not cinemascore) is making these claims. In fact, Nikki Finke is really the only one making these claims, and she's a longtime loon.

JuJuBee- this is why I bore you and other posters with my insistence on obtaining source data. Nearly everything said and printed about angelina voight is based on lies. This discussion started with the claim that a legitimate entertainment polling source had made an unbelievably favorable claim about Miss Voight. When questioned about the source data, the poster provided links, instead, to the credibility of the data source they were citing. When pressed further, they provided a second-hand claim, again without the source data. When finally pressed to provide the original data, the poster provides information proving that it was never cinemascore's poll at all, but rather a well-known loon blogger who made this claim.

So, for nearly four years now, Angie Voight's camp has perpetrated the lie that over 60 percent of "Wanted's" very successful opening was due to Voight being in the film. It has actually become part of the public domain now -- like the fact that she allegedly gave 1/3 of her earnings to charity. However, if we keep pressing, we eventually get to the truth of the matter. In this case, it turns out to be yet another paid-off hack lying about Voight's popularity.

People always wonder why Voight gets away with the studios and TPTB not calling her out on her true box office, always putting the best possible spin on her projects, when anyone can see that the numbers are being whitewashed. This is exactly why. Because she and her cohorts lie, distort, and manipulate the truth until -- by the time the real truth comes out -- the lie (Wanted was so successful because of Voight) has already stolen the narrative.

This post deserves a bump!

[Guest]

The ONLY reason I watched ''Wanted,'' was James McAvoy, whom I adore. I waited until it was shown on satellite tv because I will never pay a so much as one cent to help Pittolie perpetrate their fraud. I never buy any publications featuring the either one of the mediawhores, nor will I ever pay to see anything associated with either Mangey or her little Bleet, Pittiful.

[Guest]

Fail, loon. You really need to give this up. Once again, there is no citation for the CinemaScore "data."
What happened is this:

1) Nikki Finke lied about these numbers being from CinemaScore in her original review.
2) This is memorialized in a post copied from her blog at the time it was written. It is on this site in its entirety, and it clearly states that CinemaScore is the source for these numbers.
3) Once that lie was brought to the attention of Entertainment Weekly (which "owns" the CinemaScore data), EW's Legal was presumably brought in to "talk" to Nikki Finke. Or Nikki Finke just went back in and changed the data before she could get into legal trouble over it.
4) Now Nikki Finke's site has changed the review to more accurately reflect the fact that it is Finke's opinion that Miss Voight was the draw for "Wanted" and that this opinion is not based on any polling data from CinemaScore.
5) Meanwhile, all the review blogs had already integrated Finke's original misinformation into their reviews of the movie.
6) Since, to the best of my knowledge, Finke never made her lies public, these blogs would have no way of knowing they were quoting fraudulant data, and therefore, didn't "fix" the reviews.

You see, this is why so many of what you call "haters" simply don't believe what we hear about spittnho, We've seen things like this happen way too often.

OMG, Thank You for that info. It really clears up a few things.

I went back and saw Nikki's original post here at FF in 2008 (which mentions CinemaScore)
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=185862&start=15

It's also the biggest opening ever for a live-action Angelina movie and she proved a big draw: Cinemascore said the main reasons given for choosing to see Wanted were the action (67%) and Jolie (61%). Exit polling showed the audience breakdown was 52%/48% male to female, 51%/49% under age 30 to over age 30.

and then what Nikki changed it to (no mention of CinemaScore, only mention of "the studio"
http://www.deadline.com/2008/06/wall-e- ... ox-office/

It’s also the biggest opening ever for a live-action Angelina movie and she proved a big draw: the studio said the main reasons given for choosing to see Wanted were the action (67%) and Jolie (61%). Exit polling showed the audience breakdown was 52%/48% male to female, 51%/49% under age 30 to over age 30.

It's clear this has become Jolie's MO for PR. Release false info that gets picked up by a ton of blogs and then the "correction" doesn't get picked up because the blogs don't realize it was false data (as you said above).
Thank You again for spelling this out.

[Guest]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

[Bennie]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

Please don't apologize, and I for one applaud your efforts to debunk this nonsense the loons try to pass off as truth. Not irritating in the least -- keep up the great work!

[Guest]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

I really appreciate it, and you are right to do it because the PR that gets put out about the ho defies common sense. She is a dumb actress and a lot of people despise her, so when you hear something to the contrary, you have to question it. Was the refugee picture the one with her hugging the naked child?

[Guest]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

Please don't apologize, and I for one applaud your efforts to debunk this nonsense the loons try to pass off as truth. Not irritating in the least -- keep up the great work!

keep up the good work wish i had more time when i come here, but i don't. but all the lies these two and their pr put out is going to come back on them hard in the long run. the media has changed so much since these two got together and they just don't realize it. you have twitter, facebook, and a slew of other media that now gives you a timeline of when sh it is going down not what they just want you to know a month later. that's why they are getting called out left and right. people are sick of them thinking everybody is a loon and believes everything that comes out of their mouths. that time is over. that's what pisses me off more than anything is them thinking we are all sheep and they are smarter than us all. they will understand before it's over though.

[congusto]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

Spot on! Although, I think you're being too generous to BrangeCorp with the numbers.

[Guest]

bumping this because it's important that everyone see the lies Jolie puts out there which the loons then propagate.

Just read page 5 if you don't have time to read the whole thread.

Once again a BIG THANK YOU to the Anti that exposed this.

[Guest]

I think these comments (and all the negatives ones on Yahoo) goes to show how the Brangelina tide has turned in the last 7 years.

By the way did you see the picture they used? They found a decent one of him but she looks like a tired nag! Hysterical!!

Jesus, she looks like a nightmare! Scrawny as hell, carved up like MJ, nasty slug lips. AJ needs photoshop like the rest of us need oxygen.

That's her orgassm face - ewww

[auntgelina]

the comments make a great read whenever one is feeling down

[Guest]

You're welcome. I know I irritate other posters sometimes because I absolutely will not give up insisting on source data. I know it gets old, but every single time I do it, the source data leads right back to Voight or one her paid cohorts. I had the same experience with a loon a couple weeks ago. The loon was insisting that Newsweek made an allegation about one of Voight's "refugee" pictures. After about three pages of back and forth, the original citation was exposed and, once again, guess who made the original claim? That's right. Not Newsweek, but Voight herself.

You have to question everything you hear and read about these two, because nine times out of ten, they are spinning an event or action to their own benefit, and lies are being propagated to support their story.

I really appreciate it, and you are right to do it because the PR that gets put out about the ho defies common sense. She is a dumb actress and a lot of people despise her, so when you hear something to the contrary, you have to question it. Was the refugee picture the one with her hugging the naked child?

Yes, that was the one. There was a lot of criticism directed at Angelina Voight for posing with a naked child who was tied to a stake. The loons were trying to cite a "Newsweek" article as offering a legitimate explanation for why the child was tied up and naked. I asked at least ten times for the Newsweek source. I was provided, among other things, links to Newsweek that did not include the information cited and, in one case, linked to a article that appeared to be undermining the quoted story in a very subtle way. After several pages of this, the loon finally provided a link to the actual source which was -- you guessed it -- Angelina Voight trying to do damage control, after the fact, in an interview with someone who was not even associated with the original citation. The brazen use of spurious sources and citations is a defining factor of the whole "Brangelina" myth.

Someone actually deconstructed the "1/3 of income to charity" claim about five or six years ago, and discovered that it wasn't even 1/10th of Voight's income that was donated to charity. Almost immediately, the media stopped actually citing the claim, but never retracted it (it was all based on a claim Voight herself had made in an interview, and was picked up by the media without any quality assurance checks at all). Now people just credit her with donating "a lot" of money to charity, for no earthly reason that I can understand. You lie about the amount of money you donate to charity, it is found to be a fraudulant claim when it is investigated several years later, and so you just default to the argument that the donated amount was "a lot" of money? I cannot understand why people are so invested in this woman that they will overlook lies as crass as that.

[Levan1]

Bump...because...