W Magazine February 2009 : Brad Pitt by Chuck Close

[moussemaker]

^
I know. And I wish people would wait with rating the thread until we have more information on the content.

[Northern Star]

Although I'm well sick of W and their Brad and Ange love affair.........kudos to Brad and the mag for showing someone as they really are.
A refreshing change.

[tigerrouge]

Originally Posted by icelynn

I think it's interesting that people focus more on one page out of the hundreds of pages of the magazine and decide this is a bad issue before they even read the magazine.

It shows the power of a cover - how it alone is worth a hundred pages of content, and can make or break a sale. I suppose it's the same with the books on display in bookstores.

Additionally, I would think, if you consider a magazine as a visual object in someone's lifestyle, you can't 'see' the insides, so when that magazine is sitting around someone's house or in their collection, it needs to be good-looking. People don't want a ugly lamp on their table, they don't want a ugly magazine on their desk. That lamp could have state-of-the-art wiring, but that's not what people see.

[icelynn]

Yes but people want to see the contents too. Most people would buy a beautiful lamp even if it's wiring wasn't the highest quality, but most people wouldn't buy a magazine with bad contents JUST for the cover

[tigerrouge]

Contents matter, but the cover matters ten times more, I believe, in making that persuasive initial pitch that says "buy me now!" Without a good cover, the contents really have to work hard to close the deal.

And let's not forget the countless celebrity-obsessed people who have to own every international Madonna cover whenever she appears on Elle. And everyone who buys a magazine in a language they can't read (in which case, the articles can't matter that much).

I applaud W for putting a male celebrity on the cover, and in a shot that shows off the reality of his skin - but men get to do this on covers. When Meryl Streep was on the cover of W in 2006, the airbrush had been liberally applied. And I'll be interested to see what they do with Madonna.

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by masquerade

This is so frustrating. W just seems to be fellating Brad Pitt's artistic delusions. He is simply a very rich man who seems to own a lot of Taschen books. He needs to stop being put with art.

I am sorry but that's just ridiculous. This is a celebrity cover like they do every other month. He didn't shoot or art directed that one, so that's not a broadcast of his 'artiness'.
I don't see how they are fellating him any more than any other celebrity they feature in supposedly avant-garde photoshoot (the Gwyneth cover and shoot jumps in my mind).
The Art issue cover was a shameless pandering to his (ridiculous, I agree) pretensions. This one is a mere celebrity cover.

And this is the second Brangelina W cover that has NOTHING to do with fashion. What has happened to this magazine.

1# this is their Hollywood issue.
2# the magazine has been doing celebrity covers for years. They didn't start with the Brange.

Give the man a freaking break.

Originally Posted by lucy92

"Listen, man, Jen is a sweetheart. I think she got dragged into that one, and then there's a second round to all that Angie versus Jen. It's so created," he claims. "We still check in with each other. She was a big part of my life, and me hers. I don't see how there cannot be [that]. That's life, man. That's life."

Now that's a dignified and mature answer. Take note Jen

[Spike413]

^ Yes, they've been doing celebrity covers for years....of female celebrities wearing fashion and posing in a fashion editorial inside.

It's bad enough that they constantly feature celebrities on the cover, but when you take into account the fact that Brad played a part in the recent Angelina cover (and was mentioned on the cover I believe), as well as the general onslaught of Brangelina vs. Jen bullsh** that's been jammed down the public's throat lately is it such a wonder that people are going to complain that W seems to be sacrificing fashion for the sake of a stale celebrity?

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by Spike413

^ Yes, they've been doing celebrity covers for years....of female celebrities wearing fashion and posing in a fashion editorial inside.

Their last Hollywood issue, iirc, featured an 'arty' shot and editorial of Nicole Kidman in a T-shirt (OK, a high-fashion T-shirt) and Daniel Craig (a man, I presume) who btw looked old as hell too.

Edit: I found it. Whose ego is being fellated here?

Anyway, I'm done arguing. Brangelina debates are exhausting, often vicious and totally unsatisfying.
I'll wait for the contents.

[liberty33r1b]

i will soooo NOT buy this issue, hope they get the message that way - i want fashion, not just inside, but on the cover as well! that's important to me. when the mag is lying around in my house, i wanna see the fashion on it's cover!

[Spike413]

I'm not sure if you read my whole post Harumi, or just the part you decided to quote, but I did try my best to offer some insight into why this particular cover subject might not be too pleasing to some of the people who have posted.

I guess my point didn't get through.

[Harumi]

Originally Posted by Spike413

I did try my best to offer some insight into why this particular cover subject might not be too pleasing to some of the people who have posted.

I have read your post entirely.

You did make a general point that this issue is in some way a departure to W usual direction of putting female celebrity wearing fashion on their cover and in their content.
I used the Kidman/Craig cover story to point out that this is not true and that the claim that W panders to Brad artiness with this particular cover isn't accurate either considering they've given the 'artsy' treatment to other celebrities too, whether or not thus celebrities were interested in Art.
Well, imo at least, and I will agree to disagree with anyone who feels differently.

I am fully aware why some people might dislike that cover: it is an odd shot of yet another celebrity that a huge amount of people hate with a passion. It's not rocket science.

[iriswills]

Originally Posted by icelynn

...but most people wouldn't buy a magazine with bad contents JUST for the cover

Most wouldn't, but I do. I don't treat my magazines as monthly throw-aways, so I appreciate being able to display a good cover.

I also tend to boycott magazines with atrocious covers, regardless of good content. I don't want the publication to assume I bought the magazine for the cover/cover story if it's lame. Why encourage them?

[duynk88]

Not interested

[ponytrot]

Originally Posted by Spike413

^ Yes, they've been doing celebrity covers for years....of female celebrities wearing fashion and posing in a fashion editorial inside.

It's bad enough that they constantly feature celebrities on the cover, but when you take into account the fact that Brad played a part in the recent Angelina cover (and was mentioned on the cover I believe), as well as the general onslaught of Brangelina vs. Jen bullsh** that's been jammed down the public's throat lately is it such a wonder that people are going to complain that W seems to be sacrificing fashion for the sake of a stale celebrity?

thank you Spike! Exactly.

i'm so sick of Conde Nast and their celebrity crap. It's demeaning and results in the degredation of american art/culture. Feeding and fueling this celebrity worship instead.

[kd619da]

aaah. not another word about brad & angelina or i'm gonna puke.