Sometimes I refer to Justin Theroux as Jennifer Aniston’s “boy toy” or I allude to the idea that Justin is a “kept man”. I do this for kicks and because I think there’s a vein of truth to it. Which isn’t to say that Justin doesn’t have his own money – he does. He’s a somewhat successful screenwriter and a consistently employed character actor, and I’m sure he considered himself a wealthy enough dude before he met Jennifer. But once he and Jennifer got together, I’ve just gotten the impression that she pays all of the bills, and that she spends her money however she wants, with little input from Justin. Will this continue? Will Jennifer protect her assets even though she’s met the love of her life and they’re preparing a destination wedding? I hope so. I hope she’s the kind of woman who draws the proverbial line in the sand and says, “I don’t care how good the sex is, I still want a prenup, bitch.”
Jennifer Aniston accept Justin Theroux’s proposal under one condition: that he sign an iron-clad prenup agreement, sources say. While Aniston is worth a whopping $120 million, Justin’s bank account totals a more modest $10.5 million.
“Jen is determined to protect her fortune in the event that they split,” said a close source. “She’s working feverishly with her lawyers to hash out the prenup so she and Justin can marry by the end of the year. Then they plan to start adoption proceedings so they can bring home a baby in 2013.”
“Jen has found her romantic happy ending at last,” said a source. “But she’s been around the block enough times to know that she has to be realistic. God forbid this marriage fails, but if it does, Jen at least wants the security of knowing she won’t be wiped out financially.”
[From The Enquirer, print edition]
As I said, I hope this is true. Now, several months ago one of the tabloids claimed that Jennifer had begun to give Justin more control over her business affairs – in fact, the claim was that Justin had basically been put in charge of Aniston, Inc. Which… was probably false. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Jennifer did put Justin in charge of something, you know? Give him “something” to do.
Interestingly enough, In Touch Weekly – a tabloid firmly rooted in Jennifer’s a—hole – claims that Justin is “very involved, almost controlling” when it comes to Jennifer’s personal and professional life. A source says, “He has a strong hold on her life, he oversees everything, reads all her scripts, meets all her friends… it makes her feel safe and loved. So she’s totally happy.” OMG, I finally get it. 50 Shades of JustJen. It just clicked. Anastasia Aniston and Justin Grey, the real life 50 Shades.
Meanwhile, In Touch does have an interesting like sidebar on how Heidi Bivens is dealing with the news of JustJen’s engagement. Apparently, Heidi was “devastated” and she “was very surprised… when they were in a relationship, Justin never wanted to get married.” And now Heidi is The New Aniston too – Justin and Heidi spoke a few weeks before the engagement announcement, and an insider says, “Deep down, Heidi had hopes they’d get back together.” Sad.
Last Aniston story, I swear: The Enquirer also claims that Matthew Perry “begged” Jennifer to appear on his new NBC show “Go On”. But Aniston refused because “she’s too busy trying to rescue her hit-and-miss movie career” and Perry is pissed off because Jen “gave him the complete brush-off” when he called her. I don’t know… I don’t really see Perry “begging” Aniston for her “help” especially considering that this is the TV show that he wanted to do instead of The Good Wife (where I hear they wanted him to guest for another season).
Photos courtesy of Fame, Terry’s Diary.
Aniston soap opera life !
I really really hope she’s smart enough to get a pre-nup. I’m definitely not a fan of the girls, but I do wish her the best in the marriage.
+1 and a hearty AMEN! I don’t care for her, but PROTECT YOUR ASSETS!
Off topic, but your screen name made me google 🙂
Whoops meant to aay It made me GIGGLE not google
EDIT it’s not my day on the keyboard 😉 third time lucky your screen name made me giggle
I don’t understand why Aniston couldnt find a soulmate without baggage. She can’t be under the delusion that he’ll be different to her. It’s sort of horrifying that he just up and left Bivens. Now the tabloids will just go on about him cheating on Jennifer because he walked away from Bivens so easily.
Yeah, she should find a guy in his 40’s who has no baggage. Good luck with that. Her next date would have been in 2047 with that kind of requirement.
Hahaha! +1
LOL You are so right!
The very least she could have done is find a man that WASN’T taken.
This might just be me being a hopeless romantic which is the odd alter ego of the bitchy version of me but – does anyone else think a pre-nup sort of … tarnishes(?) the whole idea of marriage? I’ve never been married or divorced (little too young for that) so I suppose I don’t really have a clue. But if you’re going to get married, wouldn’t it be to someone you 100% trust and therefore would never need a pre-nup with? It just makes me look at this couple with sideways eyes a little.
Just my 2 pence.
Unfortunately when money + divorce + bitterness come into play, things can get really ugly. And, I’m hearing more and more stories of men suing for alimony, and not with women who have cash like Aniston either. The bulk of her money seems to be pre-marital assets, and I personally think it makes sense for her to make that untouchable. Money can make people behave horribly. Of course, you should trust your partner, but when the sh*t hits the fan, you never know.
I always felt the same way, until recently. I’ve seen too many breakups turn vicious about money. Given the amounts we’re talking (yes he’s wealthy, but she’s stratospherically so) it would be foolish to proceed without one. She and brad had wealth on par, a different, unusual, story (they reportedly did not have a prenup).
You can totally trust your partner, but when you are talking about $120 million? And multiple properties? And all from pre-marital assets? A prenup is smart. Take a look at Paul McCartney.
First of all, divorce can happen even to people who vow to be married forever. Second, how people feel during the lovey-dovey stage before marriage can change drastically in the event of a divorce.
AND………theyve not even been together that long y’all. dang. i think its a bit soon for proposals & marriage.
but i can also see wanting to jump onto something and move forward 😉
Yeah, Amelia, I totally understand what you are saying, but you’ve got to be boringly pragmatic and what @L said is absolutely right.
Prenups can be a sort of reassurance about each partner’s feelings: the less-wealthy partner is reassured when things get rough, their partner is staying with them out of love, not fear of fiscal punishment. The wealthier partner knows that money is not the reason for the marriage or the length of the marriage.
money makes people cray-cray!
Amelia, I agree with you. I have always felt that way–that it is discussing the divorce before the marriage. I say , if you take the step you take the step all the way. There is something tacky about a pre nup.
@Amelia, I’ll tell you what my bro told me when he got married – nobody walks into a marriage thinking they’ll get divorced.
My brother was married in Switzerland, and they actually have a basic prenup in their marriage ‘contract’ – the default (which they went with) is what you bring in is yours, and during marriage is shared. The other 2 options are everything’s shared, or, nothing is shared throughout the marriage (ie: no, *i* bought the fridge! You bought the TV!).
Although the romantic in me says ‘yeesh,’ I do think it’s a good thing.
There’s something about Justin Theroux that just seems so devious and sinister.
The photo with Uncle Terry is disturbing and makes Justin look like a bloodthirsty beast.
Yes! I have always thought he was creepy looking. He looks like he should be twisting his mustache at the railroad track while Jen is tied to it. 😉
OMG!!! That was a hilarious image!
He does seem like that! He’s got a totally demented maniacal look too him.
If I had a $120 million nest egg… you bet your ass there would be an iron clad pre-nup.
And if this was turned around… where Justin had the big ass bank account… no one would say a word about him demanding the pre-nup.
But for the love of all things holy… did the National Enquirer, really need to throw in the adoptions plans?
I like Aniston. I even like Angie Joe.
But Aniston is not having any kids.
When she was 35… she probably did think she would have had a child.
But after 40 a girl starts to think differently about having babies. And she seems to have changed her mind.
Yes yes and yes to everything you said.
I wish the “babies!” narrative would die already. Whenever it’s anything JA-related it’s like the tabs and commenters alike take the Delorean back to 1935. I find the assertion that every woman MUST want to pop out a bunch of babies to be a tired notion that is frankly, exhausting.
They don’t write those stories because they want women in general to have babies.
They write it because Aniston has said for years that she wants a baby, first post break up with Brad when she said she would have one in the next yr being 2005.
She is the one that constantly keeps this story running by continually talking about it.
I do agree that’s it’s so boring and is not all a woman is about.
but, just like I thought it was stupid that Britney Spears was continually asked about her virginity—I still blamed her for it as she was the one that opened the door and used it for PR.
Saralita: Unfortunately, your theory was squashed just this March. The last interview she gave where she talked about babies she quite clearly stated that she doesn’t need children to be happy.
http://www.celebitchy.com/212237/jennifer_aniston_thinks_youre_very_narrow-minded_to_assume_she_wants_babies/
Can we stop with the breathless ‘well SHE says she wants them!’ nonsense now? She has also said that ‘if it happens, it happens.’
The tabs want her to have children and want to talk about her having children because it sells magazines, that’s all. It’s about their bottom line. Aniston hasn’t said she’s wanted babies in a year or more. But the tabs have her having twins every other week. And you’re blaming Aniston for that? Get outta here.
Sorry but you’re sadly mistaken.
She has said time and time again that she wants them. I can’t help you fact check.
From her Man faced mouth:
“That really pissed me off. I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want to have children. I did and I do and I will! The women that inspire me are the ones who have careers and children; why would I want to limit myself? I’ve always wanted to have children, and I would never give up that experience for a career. I want to have it all.”
She only recently has she started saying she doesn’t need them and that they are messy(BTW: what a b!tchy thing to say.)
because that’s her M.O.
she lies to get attention. She never wanted kids and we all know it.
what people hate about her is that she repeatedly lied about it.
She is a lying, liar that lies and then flip flops when it suits her.
She has no integrity in any shape or form.
her life is a worthless existence of EXCESSIVELY; tanning, drinking and smoking, exercising, getting her hair done and making some of the worst movies out there….Thank God, she doesn’t breed—she would make a sh!tty mother. She’s way too self absorbed. Anyone that says kids are messy is a stone cold b!tch and is obviously clueless about them.
Erm…ok, Saralita. So you just brought up a 5 year old quote which might be 6 years old by now and you’re STILL holding that against her?
Ever thought that she might have changed her mind in the last 5 or 6 years and maybe that’s why she’s been talking about not wanting them?
You’d rather believe and then attack her for something she said 5 or 6 years ago than believe what she said in March and have your little theory go up in flames.
How do you know that she never wanted children? Where are the facts of this?
Oh and children are MESSY little messcats who draw on walls, poop and pee on themselves and do not understand how to clean up after themselves until you TEACH them how. Anyone who has ever been around children, ever, knows that they are messy.
A truly clueless person is one who doesn’t think children are messy. Boy are you in for a rude awakening should you ever have any.
the original comment by me was saying that she is the one keeping the story running.
So how could that “theory” as you call it be squashed when in FACT you are showing a brand new quote with her talking about it?
That just proves what I’m saying. She is the one keeping the stories running, which was my point.
this has been going for at least 7 yrs!
If she never opened her mouth, they wouldn’t have been running with it like they did.
Every actress gets a few preg rumors here and there to sell a mag, but not like her and that’s because she made strategic comments on it to keep feeding the PR machine.
And like I said I can’t keep FACT CHECKING for you, she has repeatedly talked about having kids.
TO YOUR KIDS COMMENT: wow, that is just the saddest thing Ive ever heard. no wonder you’re a fan. kids are so many more things than what u said. I can only feel sorry that you missed out.
Saralita: First thing, hilarious that you don’t think kids are messy. Of course they are more than messy, but kids are definitely messy. And I haven’t ‘missed out’ on it as I am in my twenties and am more than happy to one day have a bunch of MESSY (plus other things) kids.
Second, yea she answers questions posed to her about the baby issue.
And I gave you two quotes that actually prove that more recently she’s admitted that kids aren’t really a priority for her.
So wouldn’t you think that that was an attempt to get people to stop talking about it?
And don’t you think, even just a little bit that the tabs print those things because it sells magazines? Even just a weeee bit?
Grandpoobah, indeed children are messy and it is not sad to say so. MESSY as hell! I just got back from a Cub Scout camp and messy – you betcha. Those lollie wrappers from last night’s ‘unauthorised’ powwow (we know, we all think it’s great as long as the Sixer’s get them to brush their teeth) are the messiest!
In fact, I’m trying for one of those messy little ones again. Messy, it’s going to wee on me even at some point. Fancy!
What else? 2 years ago, I wasn’t thinking about having another weeing, pooping, talking-back, money-sucking, toy-loving child-machine-bot. Wow – looks like I changed in my outlook, eh! Funny how that can happen. That bit where months roll by and your opinions ans wants change. Weird, huh.
Love to all :o)
Of course Jen should get a prenup. Prenups are like seatbelts – you don’t get in your car to go somewhere intending to get into an accident. You can drive as carefully as you can, and other drivers can still hit you. There are no guarantees with anything in life. I wouldn’t ride in a car without a seatbelt, and I wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I make diddly squat, but I still have a right to be protective of my assets, my credit rating, etc. I’ve never felt prenups are unromantic. In fact I think it’s the exact opposite – it’s 2 people (and their lawyers lol) sitting down together, *while they’re still in love* and determining how they’re going to treat each other IF things go south. It’s very respectful and humane.
I wouldn’t get married without one, and Jen shouldn’t either.
The Matthew Perry thing – I haven’t seen the show, but just the TITLE of it is awful, stupid, and forgettable. They should call it “Group Therapy” or “The Matthew Perry Show” or something a bit more memorable than “Go On.” I get that they were going for using a therapist’s phrase, but it’s a stupid forgettable title that does the show no favors in making people watch it.
And speaking of the Matthew Perry thing, didn’t The Enquirer just report a few weeks back that JA had decided to return to TV b/c her movie career is so shitty? But now she’s trying to save her movie career? Huh?
@Valleymiss, whoc wrote: “The Matthew Perry thing – I haven’t seen the show, but just the TITLE of it is awful, stupid, and forgettable. They should call it “Group Therapy” or “The Matthew Perry Show” or something a bit more memorable than “Go On.” I get that they were going for using a therapist’s phrase, but it’s a stupid forgettable title that does the show no favors in making people watch it.”
Actually, the Matthew Perry show is really good. They showed a sneak preview of it (the first episode) one night after the Olympics.
The title “Go On” is very appropriate because the therapy group meets for grief counseling. They are trying to deal with the loss of a loved one, hence the title “Go On” … with life, beyond the grief. Matthew Perry has recently lost his wife and is in denial over his grief.
Perry’s boss (the actor who played Sulu in the 2009 “Star Trek” film) and his co-workers become concerned over his increasingly bizarre behavior (grief moving sideways), so the boss signs him up for 200 mandatory hours of grief counseling.
The therapy group is a collection of very interesting, and mostly funny, people who have lost lovers, siblings, parents, children, etc. I really enjoyed the episode. I hope the show is a hit for Perry.
The pre-nup is a great idea and very sensible. Let’s hope it never has to come into play but I just get a bad feeling about these two.
No way she’s getting a prenup. She wants this one locked down before he escapes. Haha.
oh please prenups don’t always work and Jen ain’t stratopherically rich when compaired to Meryl Streep or Vanessa Redgrave and never will be. marriage isn’t for the faint of heart it takes work and dedication
JA: You look twenty! — No, you DO! TWENTY! No, YOU do! — No — YOU! — oh Chels, I have to go — guess who is on Skype! it is time for our Big Talk! Later! Hugs and triple X kisses! — Hey there.
JT: I put some groceries on the card. And a really cute hat.
JA: Hmm…Ok. Did you write that kid name yet?
JT: Yeah. I worked all night on it. It’s really good–
JA: PEOPLE good? Child Tribe good? You know what I am up against. It’s very unfair! Oh, before you tell me, open the Fed Ex the doorman gave you & sign the paper, will you? there and there. Let me see it.
JT: Ok, right — wait — what? A pre-nup? —
JA: Sign it!
JT: Uh—but—but—-
JA: Three words: Who’s Justin Theroux?
JT: Uh, right, I, yeah, okay, right, okay. There….
JA: That’s a good boy! Now, tell me the kid’s name! We need it fast! Huvie says They may get married this weekend! tell me! so we can file name papers!
JT: I — pre-nup…..right, okay. Okay, here it is. Uh, everyone is using words so I just thought – uh—Letters. So like… we are not defining the kid or forcing gender specific-ness or putting a cultural label on it, right? We are not slapping a kid of, like, the world with a nation or a role! Yet, a letter that has….uh, meaning, for you know, US Weekly.
JA: Oh my god, I am damp! THis is why I got a writer who can think of stuff like instantly! What is it? Tell me!
JT: uh — okay. It is — Okay, it is — B.
JA: ———B? — ? — oh my GOD! You are brills! I get it! I get it! It makes “Pax” seem like totally Glamour Shots! B! Like, Be!
JT: Or… Bennington. Or… like the third letter in Cabo, since it will make us — C for Chelsea, A for you and uh, O – for Theroux! so B for, yeah, It!
JA: Or……. for.. Brad!!!!!!!!!!!!! (squees loudly) Like secretly It is a secret doghair Pittling! oh my GOD!!!
JT: Uh, ok– yeah! And then, if you don’t mind, star precious, for a middle name, it would mean a lot to me to give a nod to the writer who influenced me most with her free, all-balls-out, screw the establishment style, Miss Molly Ivins — she wrote Elvis’s obit, and invented the word gang-pluck! Can’t you see that in Rolling Stone already?
JA: Oh my god. I would be married to the guy who knew that! Oh my GOD! That’s better than even Gerard being like a lawyer! Why you didn’t get that writing gig on Leverage I’ll never know! I am texting Huvie now — B Ivins Theroux! Oh my god I can tell It will act! I think, a boy, don’t you! It can marry Coco and they can stand against Suri when B and Suri make a film – wait — Huvie is sending me a text – he’s angry! he says “Maybe you should just call it Heidi?” What?
JT: Ha, ha, he is just mad I got you and he didn’t. He covets your beauty! And taste! And…magical starness, dear! You know how he gets!
JA: Oh! Of course! Ok, I just texted him back, “I love you too but go buy me a little B Ivins, fast! Magazine deadline!s” LOL! Oh, Justin, you are my throbbing unwashed desperado rocket scientist! Tear up that paper! Talk dirty to me! I have five minutes before we film my walking scene!
JT: LOL! Okay! Angelina looks like a BRATS doll!
JA: hahaha oh I love you!
Lol! Reading that was thoroughly enjoyable. 😆
Muhaawww that is HYSTERICAL
I hope you’ll keep writing. I love it. LMAO!!!
If she doesn’t want a prenup, Huvsy will make her. He wants to get paid for his hard work.
Hahahaha. Liberty. Just…. Liberty! :0)
Bravo!
LMAO. 😀 😀 It’s official. I’m reading Lainey mostly for her imaginary conversation between J.lo and Casper, while @LAK’s post for about the whole triangle, and now your post for JustJen…Love it! 🙂
Are you trying to get me fired?! I laughed so hard people were poking their heads into my office to find out what was so funny.
That was amazing.
I laughed so hard my sides hurt!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Damn, you’re good!
LOL Liberty nailed it again, hilarious!
Aniston has right to protect her money
wow, does $10 million seems a lot for JT?
Highly unlikely that he has $10 Million in the bank. He probably hasn’t even grossed that much in his entire career.
His NAV is probably closer to $3.5 Million assuming he has no other sources of income outside of the industry.
I’d be shocked if he is worth $3 mil. Why do people peg him as being worth millions. He’s not in the big leagues yet and if you’re not you do not make millions.
He was worth 4 million 1 year ago. And now bis net worth has increased by over 100% 1 year later?!?!?
Doing what exactly? We have not heard about any work that he has done in the past year. We have seen him all year hanging out with Aniston, not working.
I sincerely hope that this isn’t a question. Of course ole girl should get a prenup. In fact, I’m shocked the J-Lo first husband confidentiality clause hasn’t been bandied about – now that would be extraordinarily smart, especially after John Mayer opened his yap.
Pre-nup I buy as sensible and almost standard operating procedure for folks with money. A non-disclosure agreement is just plain insulting, the gist being “I’m so incredibly more important than you in every way that you can’t talk about your own life if it might reflect upon how much of an a$$hole I’m going to be to you and I can be an a$$hole to you because I’m incredibly important and make more money than you.”
I don’t know Ms. Aniston, of course, but I don’t think she’s stupid or uncommonly mean..
All that sounds like tabloid nonsense, except the pre-nup part. Anyone with a fraction of her assets should.
Adoption plans?? LOL 😀 !! Horsesh*t.
kinda OT but still related to Aniston, interesting article about her “a-list” status
http://www.eonline.com/news/338672/is-jennifer-aniston-more-of-a-movie-star-or-a-celebrity?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories
How is Jen Aniston still relevant as an A-list actor when she only does B movies?
—S.T. Alsop, via Facebook
With the nonstop coverage of Aniston’s engagement—the ring! The announcement! That what’s-his-name guy who popped the question!—it can definitely seem like Jen is one of the world’s biggest stars. But don’t let the incessant coverage fool you.
From a strict business viewpoint, Aniston isn’t an A-list star. And before all you Team Jennifer fans freak out in the comments, hear me out.
In Hollywood, the definition of “A-list” has nothing to do with the number of magazines a star covers, or the number of Twitter followers she has, or whether she belongs to a portmanteau couple like Brangelina or Kimye. Your bedroom could be filled, floor to ceiling, with posters of Miley Cyrus. But Miley Cyrus isn’t A-list either.
A-list means that a star can get a movie financed pretty much on her name alone. A-listers can sell a movie to fans without any of us really caring what the movie is about. Think Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Robert Downey, Jr., Denzel Washington, maybe.
In contrast: Jennifer Aniston may garner plenty of hits on gossip websites. But unless those clicks translate into a flood of film financing, ticket sales, DVD rentals or Netflix streams, she ain’t A-list.
Now, that isn’t to say that Aniston is totally worthless. Far from it! She putts butts in movie seats. A lot of them. The result?
“She’s not A-list anymore but is a strong B-plus for mid-budget romantic comedies,” says James Ulmer, whose Ulmer Scale tracks the bankability of major stars. “Even then, she needs to be paired with an A-minus male star to be bankable internationally.”
Her fit body prominently plays in her casting in her recent roles; I would be hugely surprised if she isn’t in some state of undress in her currently filming movie with Sudeikis.(edit:doesn’t she play a stripper or prostitute with a heart of gold? I rest my case.)
That being said, people are sick to death of Rachel in these rom-coms, and there are so many other actresses that I would rather see in these roles than her.
As she ages, and the writers don’t feature her body somewhere in the script, she will slip from B down the alphabet pretty quickly….
I always thought of her as a B list who got A list attention.
I think most working actors are B list though, there are very few A listers these days.
Dede, thank you for posting this.
I’ve waited so long to finally have a major outlet just say it like it is.
I’ve been saying this for yrs that she always need an A list Male to partner with or ensembles that Huvane pushes her to promote as her movie.
A win-win for her;
if movie tanks: it’s the male leads fault or it was just an ensemble.
movie goes to #1: it’s her movie suddenly.
like with the Switch & Horrible Bosses, remember she was on every outlet promoting both as HER movie.
when the switch bombed—-all the fans and the spin from her was “Batemen was the star and she was only a side role.”
Horrible Bosses–she was on every cover, every show…promoting as if it was her movie??? She had the least screen time of everyone in it and had the weakest part.
I’m glad to see this is being brought to light, because it’s absurd that she has been allowed to get a pass for this long.
She has Steve Guttenburg’s career. She may be omnipresent but her movies are sh!t and she’s nowhere near A-list.
(ever notice how many places still refer to her as “the former friends star”??? there is a reason for that—she never caught the wave that TV actors like Clooney did, she just never took because she never had the chops.)
Agreed , Saralita.
I, too, am glad this report has been released. Just think about all of the PR spent on Wanderlust, and how the movie bombed. Aniston was the biggest star in the movie. However, her celebrity-dom, while at its peak right now, could not convince moviegoers to see the movie.
I have long argued that Aniston is not A-list movie star, but better known as a celebrity like Kim Kardashian.
120 million???
I know she rakes in the dough with Friends royalties and stuff but jeebus!
The bulk of that came from royalties from Friends re-runs which she received for ten years after the series wrapped, according to the terms of her contract. The royalties ended in 2009 so her income is pretty diminished now from what it was between 1999 and 2009.
Jennifer made the same as all the other 5 did. For 5 years after the series wrapped. $16.666 mil each year for 5 years. There may be some small yearly amount they still get but it is neglible.
she’s working feverishly to make the prenup…..hope she has some smart water to keep hydrated.
No matter what the expected Pre-Nup says, if they remain married for 20 years or more what’s his will be her’s and visa-versa.
There will also be several threshold monitary safety nets built in to the agreement leading up to (2033?) for Justin’s peace of mind.
What about her peace of mind since most of the money is hers? He can go earn his own money.
@ ‘No matter what the expected Pre-Nup says, if they remain married for 20 years or more what’s his will be her’s and visa-versa.’ (sic ‘vice versa’ 😉 )
That is not correct. The prenup makes everything covered under it (all her assets owned prior to marriage) exempt from any divorce proceedings.
Whatever she/they make during the marriage, will be shared 50/50 in the event of divorce, since California is a community property state, and no-fault state. They may be married for 5 days instead of the 20 years, and still they’d have to split whatever they earned in those 5 days evenly between them. The 20 year number you are throwing around is completely arbitrary and has no legal meaning in California divorce law.
Now, the prenup may stipulate that if they make it past 5 or 10 or 20 years, that then he will be entitled to a specified value of uncontended spousal support, but it will not have anything to do with division of premarital assetts.
I’ll bet she got a lot of that money through her divorce from Pitt (I think he was the major bread winner in the family, with his production company). So she knows what she’s doing.
I think they were partners in that company, but I don’t know if it was an equal partnership.
With the money she was making on Friends at the time, I would guess they were fairly equal in wealth. All of those Friends stars are loaded from that, and she’s done more film work since than most of them.
She stupidly let Brad take their production company Plan B.
Which went on to make really great movies like the Departed and A Mighty Heart (which Maniston actually thought she might play at the time—LOL don’t get me started on that!)
She took their empty monstrosity of a house, filled with the silent echoes that only comes from no children running around.
she went on to form her own production company and produce the Bounty Hunter???? she has to produce movies she stars in because her career is going down a mudslide.
LOL
She had only a minor share of Plan B, Brad and Brad Grey owned most of it and Brad got Brad Grey’s share when he left and took over Paramount. Brad bought out Jen’s tiny share of Plan B and talked about it in a Variety article in Dec 2006.
They split the big BH home sales proceeds, Brad’s realtor found the buyer. They had prenups, never joint accounts, that is why there was no battle over money or property when they divorced.
Brad had his Los Feliz and Santa Barbara property and Jen had her Bird Street LA house.
She is not worth $120 mil anymore, gets less per pic now and those huge Friends payouts are over. Her perfume flopped, Smartwater ads bring in some $$$ but she is not rolling in $$$ these days.
She totally better get a good prenup, Justin is poor compared to her assets, and stands to gain if they marry without a prenup. Love don’t buy the luxury lifestyle Jen is used to or pay her entourage.
She got her money from the huge 5 year Friends payouts. She and Brad Pitt had airtight prenups and separate accounts. Only joint property was the BH house they sold and split the profit when they divorced.
I don’t think she’s as rich as she’d like people to think and it takes money to live the way she does. Not to mention she bought two new houses, which I’m sure Justin couldn’t contribute nearly as much as she did. For some reason, her money is always estimated at $120 million. And we know she’s not receiving the Friends’ residuals anymore. What does she do? Work just enough each year to keep it at $120? I think this figure is an exaggeration.
The $120 Million figure was probably actual at some point in the past but people continue to use as a fact.
Nobody knows what she’s currently worth, but it seems as though she is always working and as such accumulating wealth.
Jennifer’s lifestyle seems almost frugal compared to some other wealthy celebs. She owns a nice home (which she’ll likely flip in a few years for a huge profit) but as far as I know there are no yachts or private jets or Villas in Tuscany to drain her bank accounts.
@ Midnight, your net worth is not how much money you have, it’s a combination of how much you made through your career/net worth of any properties you own. Jen’s $120 million net worth does not mean that’s how much money she has in the bank, more like your gross income before taxes, paying bills, paying your agents/mangers/lawyers/pub-HUVANE-licist. So in reality, Aniston only has a fraction of her net worth, which is why she’s working so hard making 3-5 movies a year. I would say she’s lucky if she has $40 million in the bank.
There was a entertainment news show on a few years ago that basically broke down how much an actor who gets paid $20 million a movie really gets when everyone else involved gets their cut, i.e. $4 million.
You are incorrect. What you seem to be talking about is an estimated Lifetime Gross value – the running total of what a person earned in their life (which would have to exclude any assetts since they’ve been paid for from the earnings).
The Net value, or net worth, is the total of all the money someone has (in bank accounts, property, jewelry, art, investments) minus any liabilities (e.g. mortgages, personal movie financing loans etc).
Polk8dot is right. It’s a very simple formula: how much you own outright (all your assets), minus how much you owe. If your assets are higher than your debts, you have a positive net worth. If you owe more than you have, you have a negative net worth.
Many Americans have a negative net worth, e.g. they have total assets of $100,000 while they owe $200,000 on the mortgage. If they lost their jobs, they’d be left with nothing but a mountain of debts and no way to pay them off once the creditors took all their assets. And they’d still owe the rest.
If she’s smart, she’ll get a prenup. I see them lasting for only 3-5 years tops.
Justin – will you make me the happiest man in the world and be my wife?
Jen – squeals… cries… oh darling, you are the Prince Charming to my Cinderella, the fixer of all heartbreaks of horrible relationships past, I just know we’ll be together forever! Oh and I just happen to have this iron-clad prenup agreement here in my purse…
I love romance 😀
I am sorry but this isn’t even slightly interesting (except for Liberty’s awesome post)…To paraphrase Kanye ‘it’s something that she needs to have cuz when he leaves her yoga ass he’s gonna leave with half’
Maybe she should marry Russell Brand. They both do yoga. He wants a baby too and when they split he won’t take her money.
mln76 you nailed it!
Haha me like-y!
I read there’s going to be a few special clauses;
~He must keep the fridge stocked with Chardonnay and sunscreen.
~ In the event of a split she retains custody of Chelsea Handler.
~He will agree to legally adopt any dogs adopted from Africa or Asia but will never feed them grasshoppers.
~He will chop off his own peen before he agrees to direct a sympathetic biography of Angelina Jolie unless Ms. Jolie is played by Dustin Hoffman.
~In the event of any infidelity, he will publicly declare HIMSELF “uncool.”
It’s feverish, folks. They’re the first people with money to ever get married.
loved your post!
sounds realistic only a little correction I’d add.
has to stock the fridge with margaritas and guac–hold the chips—AS THEY ARE CARBS!
And what is the golden rule that Skinnyjeans needs to learn fast???
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE EVER MAY A CARBOHYDRATE OF ANY KIND COME WITHIN 5 FEET OF MR MANISTON.
Oh yes, I heard that Heidi was planning to send them a dozen fresh baked cinnamon buns as a wedding gift.
Haha. And some more bologna for Just-in-it-for-the-fame.
Very funny post. I enjoyed it. Keep it coming.
Is Jennifer Aniston More of a Movie Star…or a Celebrity?
How is Jen Aniston still relevant as an A-list actor when she only does B movies?
—S.T. Alsop, via Facebook
With the nonstop coverage of Aniston’s engagement—the ring! The announcement! That what’s-his-name guy who popped the question!—it can definitely seem like Jen is one of the world’s biggest stars. But don’t let the incessant coverage fool you.
From a strict business viewpoint, Aniston isn’t an A-list star. And before all you Team Jennifer fans freak out in the comments, hear me out.
In Hollywood, the definition of “A-list” has nothing to do with the number of magazines a star covers, or the number of Twitter followers she has, or whether she belongs to a portmanteau couple like Brangelina or Kimye. Your bedroom could be filled, floor to ceiling, with posters of Miley Cyrus. But Miley Cyrus isn’t A-list either.
A-list means that a star can get a movie financed pretty much on her name alone. A-listers can sell a movie to fans without any of us really caring what the movie is about. Think Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Robert Downey, Jr., Denzel Washington, maybe.
In contrast: Jennifer Aniston may garner plenty of hits on gossip websites. But unless those clicks translate into a flood of film financing, ticket sales, DVD rentals or Netflix streams, she ain’t A-list.
Now, that isn’t to say that Aniston is totally worthless. Far from it! She putts butts in movie seats. A lot of them. The result?
“She’s not A-list anymore but is a strong B-plus for mid-budget romantic comedies,” says James Ulmer, whose Ulmer Scale tracks the bankability of major stars. “Even then, she needs to be paired with an A-minus male star to be bankable internationally.”
If you look at the take from her film she certainly does not put butts in seats.
These films may go on to do decently well in the secondary video market and that confirms that she really should be on TV. I don’t know why she seems to resist this since it’s earned her an incredible fortune and a good deal of her fame.
bwahahahaaha…OUCH!double the OUCH!
When you really think about it though, how many actors can get butts in the seats just on their name anymore?
People aren’t just slinging their money around on movies like they did in the 90s, when an actor really genuinely could sell a film just by being attached to it. Will Smith is a perfect example of this. He had a series of HUGE movies come out and they were selling them based on the fact that he was in them. People went and saw the next Will Smith movie and they didn’t care what it was about.
Nowadays I think (and this is a PERSONAL OPINION coming up) people are more careful with their money. The biggest films of the year were comic book films which could have had any decent actor in them, frankly, and they would have done well.
They made an entirely unnecessary reboot of Spiderman with a whole new cast and it STILL did well. Why? People will see it no matter what.
It doesn’t matter who is in it because they like the subject matter and don’t care about who the actors are.
I can only really think of one person who does crazy bank no matter what the movie is and that’s Tyler Perry. People will go and see the new Tyler Perry movie and not even know what it’s about.
But even Brad Pitt’s movies don’t always do well without fail. Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts-all household names who have had flops recently. Why?
Because the subject is more important. People went and saw Pirates of the Caribbean because it looked cool, not because Johnny Depp was in it (although one could argue that the subsequent films were made based on his characterization of Captain Jack). But the first film had a great story and was based on a ride that everyone loves.
PERSONALLY (and again, PERSONAL OPINION here), I don’t just go and see a movie based solely on an actor’s name. Every single actor has done a bad film. Every single one. I tend to look at reviews and read synopses and if the SUBJECT interests me, then good actors who I like are just a bonus.
Frankly I don’t understand people who go and see movies just because a certain actor is in it-in my opinion, it’s a very childish way of thinking about that. I used to watch Barney because I liked Barney. I went and saw anything Devon Sawa was in because “zmog he was so cute!”. But after about age 21, I kinda got over that and starting seeing movies due to what looked good, not due to who was in it.
Am I the only one who feels this way? Clearly there is a large contingent of folks who feel the opposite, otherwise there wouldn’t be a rating system based on it.
putting your personal opinions aside which I can totally agree with..
this is comparing apples with oranges..
the analogy is as follows:
Maniston makes movies that are supposed to be hits no matter what…they are RomComs…which is like the blockusters for the female fans.
they are the money makers. (they, like the blockbusters have nothing to do with acting ability or even good scripts..its just about making money.)
so you cannot compare those types with indies or with dramas that are not meant to hit huge box office records.
Maniston RomComs have huge budgets and are expected to make money—that is the whole goal—to entertain.
she does not deliver. period.
Saralita: Never did I once mention Aniston in my response-I was just commenting on the current state of the A-list.
But you took that as an opportunity to drag out your tired missive (Maniston-so clever) and talk about how her movies fail even though they, for the most part, do quite well for what they are.
By the by, all movies are made to make money. People pretend that its about the ‘art’ or whatever but movies need to make money in order for the moviemakers to make more movies.
It’s called show business for a reason. It’s a business, not a commune of artists sharing their work over unpasteurized goat milk and organic strawberries.
Indies and little arty dramas might not be made to make boatloads of cash but they are always made with the intention of making money.
And I wasn’t comparing Aniston’s movies to any other films, by the way. I don’t think I mentioned them at all, actually.
Grandpoobah- That’s one of the best responses I’ve seen to Saralita’s broken record; consistently droning on about how “Maniston” has no right to breathe air. Every cookie cutter comment revolves around blaming Jen for just about everything. And she just keeps doing it (see below) because of the Jen-hate group think going on around here.
I’ve seen her on TV in a movie about a woman with lots of problems (I don’t remember the detailed story), not even trying to be sexy, flannel shirt and jeans, she was good I think (I wouldn’t know at 100%, it was french voice). She could really well play the relationships, redemption stories. She’s too old for the romantic comedies anyway. She may know it, she can’t seriously think she’ll play the “little fiancée” to the end of times.
I LOVED tropic thunder more than anything in the world…. JT was heavily involved so his pockets are full. its hollywood and nothing lasts so protect what you got. civilians cant judge!
I’m sure he is talented; but why are people acting as if he is some huge well known script/screen writer. I could name a lot of more successful movies then the ones he has had some connection too and most of the people here wouldn’t know who the script/screen writer was. If anyone thinks Justin is making millions of dollars as a script/screen writer they need their heads checked.
and I really don’t care who his family is and how successful his cousin his. That is their success not his.
I have a cousin that is worth millions..
I’m not worth millions. See that is how the world works.
I really think there is such a NEED by her fans to make Justin’s status in par with hers.. which is laughable to me. Because outside of staring in ROMCOMs Jennifer is not a heavy hitter in Hollywood. She is not involved in anything. She is not Producing/Directing or Writing. She is not the person Writers/Directors say they want to work with her. So on that alone Justin is way more successful then she is. She has name recognition. but I don’t think she is more talented. He seems to have more to fall back on then she does.
Um…dear… Squiggy’s pockets are full of JEN’s money.
Last year it was quoted that he made 4 million. The Rock of Ages was released and sank faster than the Titanic. He has not worked since then. BUT, he has been seen everywhere with Jen, helping HER spend money of pictures, condos, and houses.
Yes, he has a a few things lined up. BUT he has not been PAID for anything lately. He is NOT a A-list, sought-after, millionaire writer OR director.
Why are you hens so desperate to make him look rich and in high demand, when it is simply NOT TRUE?
He’s marrying up, she’s marrying down.
Everytime I see this guy I remember him as the redneck cowboy in Romy & Michelle’s high school reunion. Or whatever it was called.. I laughed my ass off with that movie it was stupid as all get out but I laughed. So I can’t take this guy serious.
But doesn’t she love Justin more than anything?
So when is the Brands wedding? First it was last weekend, no its this weekend. Oh thats right, romantic Brad said actually there really and truly is no date set and we are still waiting for the gay marriage thing to pan out.
LOL. Incredible that you are still reading and believing and repeating tabloid tales. Shaking my head.
Brad responded to a question asked him about when is the wedding at Cannes press conference in MAY and you can’t even quote the answer he gave on record correctly. There is a video of his answer you know.
One he refused to give out his personal information to the hoard of the rabid and two he said “still hoped for marriage equality by that date”. He voiced his support for something he believes in but DID NOT say it not being a reality would act as a bar to his and Angelina’s marrying when they decided to do so.
Truth not gossip.
@Sophie: FACT CHECK ALERT.
meanwhile, back at Maniston ranch…she has just cut some more holes in her bra and put on her tightest jeans(perhaps an early engagement gift from Just-In-it-for-the-fame) and stepped out for a perfectly planned papped moment.
*and notice she’s in what seems to be her own clothes with the ring for the movie??? she has been known to wear her own style of clothes in most of her crap-asss movies so…we’ll see if this was her wardrobe or not.
That’s why I love her, she’s just so private (hard nipples and publicly announcing her engagement 4 months after her Ex’s)
I mean what a cool, class act. LOL
bulls-eye!
meanwhile- I rest my case.
Double bulls-eye!
Sorry, double post.
JulieM: Nice to see someone here can see the absolute nonsense Saralita is talking.
As opposed to the ‘common sense’ Sophie is speaking? The nonsensical hypocrisy on here from Aniston fans is astonishing. I refuse to believe that you are serious in your posts. Nice to see others point out the absolute bizarre nonsense Sophie posts.
Kayla: Did I say anything about Sophie’s post?
Who are you quoting with “common sense”? Certainly not me.
So what exactly do Brad/Angie’s wedding date have to do with Jennifer and a prenup.
Brad/Angie and family have not been seen in weeks. And they are not giving interviews. Just because the tabs and media are speculating on when they are getting married has nothing to do with them. I like that they are not coming out to say yes or no to the reports. Just shows that they don’t care and will do what they want when they want. And they don’t feel the need to make public denials.
I highly doubt she is worth 120 million. That number seems to be the one they have used for years. Jennifer is not a big earner regarding movies. She can’t be making 8 million per film if the total budget of most of her movies is 35 million. so they are paying her 1/4 the movie budget.. NO that is not happening. My understanding as someone else pointed out that Friends money is not coming in like it did. And that being the case you can see she has been working loads and trying to supplement her income with investing in the water company and that perfume. Not to mention she went to some hotel openings for money too.
not saying she is not rich, but I just doubt the 120 million figure. I think it is less.
Aniston had some b**ch comments about Angelina Jolie but Aniston did steal a guy from his gal. Ok, Bivens and Theroux weren’t married but STILL….
They lived together, for 14 YEARS!!!!!
Bivens is quoted as thinking she was still in a relationship with Theroux and being shocked to hear he was cozying up with Aniston.
Now the score is even for the Jolie haters…
And What do we really know about all of this anyhow, huh? We’re just paparazzi fodder. LOL
No more Angelina Jolie bashing … especially as Pitt and Aniston were finished when the Pitt-Jolie love story started.
And c’mon, Jolie-Pitt donate MILLIONS in time and dollars all over the world, they’re “good people” as far as I’m concerned …
they try to make a difference in our world, unlike many other celebrities
Jen Aniston fell for a guy who was committed elsewhere, and unlike Jolie who admitted to finding the separated and divorcing Pitt attractive, Aniston had problems publicly expressing her feelings toward Theroux even though they were already an item. Shame on her
I feel the saddest for Bivens. Wow, the shock huh? Finding out your guy is dating Aniston, and now seeing them marry…
She may have figured their relationship was solid, or he maybe told her he’s against marriage, or maybe she didn’t believe in marriage, WHO KNOWS???
BUT, if you’re living with someone and it’s been 14 years, you surely feel committed, right? Marriage or no marriage.
She must be hurting now, she apparently truly loved Theroux.
So Aniston, Jolie … same deal.
It’s called life … sometime we fall in love with someone and it’s complicated.
Sh*t happens.