[Breathless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseDillon It's 100x better than Linda and Joans covers....

No the hell its not! In fact, when you line up all those covers like that Joan's cover stands out the most! This has been a crappy year for Vogue Italia and Meisel really need to step his game up for 2013!

[Morphe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EstefaniaAbaddon I don't get the Anita Ekberg comparisons. She's more like Kirsten Dunst, to be honest. Anita had lovely cheekbones and bone structure (and some hips! And a nice bottom!). Her face was not a perfectly round ball like Kate's (or Kirsten's). Kate's face is so round it bothers me. At least they could be able to add some blush/colour to those cheekbones, ah?

I don't know what picture you're looking at but this lady is nowhere near Kirsten realness.

[deflyricist2006]

I think this cover is absolutely lovely. Very 90's. What is the issue that everyone is having? The fact that it is Kate Upton?

[Shelton123]

I love this cover so much. Regardless of Kate Upton's high fashion relevance (or lack thereof) or personality or whatever, she looks great, the styling is great, the photography's great, nothing to dislike here. The eds this issue are intriguing and overall solid. I'm going to pick this one up for sure.

[congacon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deflyricist2006 I think this cover is absolutely lovely. Very 90's. What is the issue that everyone is having? The fact that it is Kate Upton?

my issue with kate upton is that her look is so ordinary that it doesnt represent high fashion. high fashion is known for its love of rare beauties.

please dont compare lara to kate upton. lara is a whole package, not just about boobs. it's her face that got the industry falls in love all over, her boobs are just a bonus.

[loladonna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EstefaniaAbaddon I don't get the Anita Ekberg comparisons. She's more like Kirsten Dunst, to be honest. Anita had lovely cheekbones and bone structure (and some hips! And a nice bottom!). Her face was not a perfectly round ball like Kate's (or Kirsten's). Kate's face is so round it bothers me. At least they could be able to add some blush/colour to those cheekbones, ah?

This is the problem I have with the industry right now. Any lanky girl with sharp cheekbones gets a modeling contract and as a result the industry is flooded with the same face. Cheekbones should not be the defining factor in whether or not someone can model. There are plenty of different types of beauty. I would like to see more "round" faces as you put it.

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

when i look at Kate I don't get expensive seductive... i get cheapness. The make-up is heavy, the styling looks dated, and I don't lik this angle. I could care less where she came from. I just don't like her look. Where's Doutzen or Hilary?

[Heroin_Chic]

There is a mistake on the cover - the correct word is TACKY!

[tigerrouge]

According to vogue.it, this IS inspired by Helmut Newton, so perhaps that might provide more context (if not appreciation) for the styling:

Quote:

E Kate Upton, con la sua femminilità forte e dirompente, in stile Helmut Newton, ne è sicuramente un emblema.

[DariaDeva]

bigger.

klatsch-tratsch.de

[theBlueRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by loladonna This is the problem I have with the industry right now. Any lanky girl with sharp cheekbones gets a modeling contract and as a result the industry is flooded with the same face. Cheekbones should not be the defining factor in whether or not someone can model. There are plenty of different types of beauty. I would like to see more "round" faces as you put it.

Agreed to some extent.

Kate's face shape isn't actually round. It's more like a short heart. It's very similar to Arizona Muse's face shape but with more fullness...

Kate photographs really well and she does have great cheekbones and facial structure **EDITED**. Photographic light hits her face really really well. She photographs well consistently across the board.

But I agree with your first point.
There are actually a lot of models, in my opinion, who don't have good cheekbones or facial structure.

**EDITED**

[JesseDillon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DariaDeva Sandy in NY, Kate A. on VI cover, what is the next?

That is a very vile thing to say, and nothing to be joking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loladonna This is the problem I have with the industry right now. Any lanky girl with sharp cheekbones gets a modeling contract and as a result the industry is flooded with the same face. Cheekbones should not be the defining factor in whether or not someone can model. There are plenty of different types of beauty. I would like to see more "round" faces as you put it.

This.
Kate is very much a different kind of beauty than we get to see on a regular basis. Which is why I welcome it so much. Not everyone should have cheekbones that can cut glass **EDITED**

Kate is just as deserving of this cover as one of the random newbies Meisel likes to play with, that never amount to anything.

Kate could very well bring back the era of the actual supermodel.

[Urban Stylin]

Quote:

Kate could very well bring back the era of the actual supermodel.

i agree
she can do a Pepsi ad at the superbowl and people will recognize her, she can show up at the MTV awards and everyone will want to know who she is, she can pose on SI/GQ and men wont complain...and she is on Vogue Italia and in US vogue

[justaguy]

the more i see this cover, the more i like it!

[ottawa]

Although I love the idea of celebrity models, I really don't like Kate Upton. She looks far too commercial for Vogue Italia and Meisel. Girls like Miranda and Candice, although very pretty, still have something offbeat about their faces that is appealing in a high fashion context