W Magazine September 2008 : Kate Hudson by Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott

[helmut.newton]

I think the reason W uses so many celebrities on their covers is purely for money making purposes.

This way, they can have cutting edge content with great photographers.

Its a sacrifice I'm willing to accept. As long as the content is good, I can understand why they need to have celebrity on their covers.

[MiuMiuiluvit09]

i really love this cover.
W is stepping their game up just a tad lol

[Spike413]

Well, if they're going to put a celeb on a cover, at least they made it look good this time around.

Normally I hate the overly airbrushed look, but in a case like this where the photo is clearly referencing fashion photography from the late 70's/early 80's, Guy Bourdin's look in particular, it works because back then the look was hyper-perfect as well. The only difference between Bourdin/Nadja's cover and this cover is the methods the photographers took to make it look hyper-perfect. Why does it matter if it's precision lighting and makeup or photoshop if the results are pretty much the same?

Yes the cover is a ripoff of another photograph, but when are M&M not referencing someone else's work in their photography? Is anyone really shocked?

[Bahiyya]

The Fug girls summarise my take (in a more amusing manner, of course):

Also working me up: the idea that they've got an interview with Tilda Swinton in here and still decided to put Kate Hudson on the cover in disguise as an 80s robot car-hop, programmed to stab you to death with the straw from your malted. If Tilda Swinton were on the cover styled thusly, we'd all be like, "Oh, TILDA. You are a kooky, artsy delight! Tell me more about your unconventional romances! You please me!" As it is, my reaction is more along the lines of, "Kate Hudson, you poseur. Nice try." Kate Hudson's entire career is built on being the opposite of being edgy and while in general I appreciate taking things in a new direction, this is like the magazine cover equivalent of that time Denise Richards played a nuclear physicist: hilarious, annoying, and a valiant attempt to ask the public to suspend entirely too much disbelief. Baby steps, Kate. Try dark nail polish first. Then maybe one day we'll be able to look at you all tarted up like a programmed killer escaped from an undiscovered Robert Palmer video and not giggle at you.

gofugyourself.celebuzz.com

As a cover it's good, especially for a celeb cover, but I can't appreciate it on the same level as the first when I consider the subject.

[MulletProof]

^ brilliant review.. so true.

[iluvjeisa]

Originally Posted by Spike413

Normally I hate the overly airbrushed look, but in a case like this where the photo is clearly referencing fashion photography from the late 70's/early 80's, Guy Bourdin's look in particular, it works because back then the look was hyper-perfect as well. The only difference between Bourdin/Nadja's cover and this cover is the methods the photographers took to make it look hyper-perfect. Why does it matter if it's precision lighting and makeup or photoshop if the results are pretty much the same?

Yes the cover is a ripoff of another photograph, but when are M&M not referencing someone else's work in their photography? Is anyone really shocked?

I don't like this cover very much because it fails at doing the same thing that the Nadia/Demarchelier cover did...Nadja had an edge in her eyes that Kate Hudson could never have. The 1994 cover looks like you would have - miraculously - been able to snap some infinitely gorgeous creature at an S&M club; and by some grace of god, the lights were bright enough, and it's just that one perfect frame, where she looks up, somewhat angry to see you take photos of her....and just so unbearably cool.

In other words, she is a great model, and the people involved in the shoot were a great team. Both those things must be true for a great cover to happen....Kate Hudson could never accomplish the same effect, unless they photoshopped someone else's eyes in there, I suppose. Maybe merge Sasha into the picture somehow - you know - then you can claim it's a celeb on the cover and you can still have a great shot...

Further, the neck is the difference, as already mentioned.

As for Bourdin... With old techniques, texture wasn't lost, with photoshop, it frequently is...

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

wat i dont really understand
is why every1 is making a big
fuss ove the comparison of
kate and Nadja...it just doesnt make any
since really kate is an actress Nadja is not
so really there is no comparison

[Ferdinanda]

I think when something is an imitation of something done before...it's common nature to compare. Just my opinion anyways.

[chaneladdict]

I am so tired of Kate Hudson in all forms. She is a terrible actress and not terribly compelling as a person. I got so tired of all those articles about how her marriage was sooo rock solid. Now what do we focus on?? How rebellious she is..yawn. I do like the cover though and am excited as always to get my September issues!

[FashinKid90]

I saw the magazine today ..but it was a Newstand

[iluvjeisa]

Originally Posted by TREVOFASHIONISTO

wat i dont really understand
is why every1 is making a big
fuss ove the comparison of
kate and Nadja...it just doesnt make any
since really kate is an actress Nadja is not
so really there is no comparison

I don't get it....it's fine to redo a cover, but don't expect people wont be annoyed or compare....

[Miss Dalloway]

^^Exactly, its like wanting to sell something that was alredy sold, which is the case with M&M alot of times.

Fug girls NAILED IT!!!!

I can only imagine how amazing could have Tilda the goddess been on the cover.

[lucy92]

perezhilton had both cover images on his blog. i think he got the idea for the entry from here actually.

[tigerrouge]

Nadja's Bazaar could never be bettered... that said, I'll have to go away and ask myself, why am I not annoyed when Meisel remakes iconic images for Vogue Italia covers right down to the tiny details of the original shot, yet this W cover leaves me cold.

I think it's because that Bazaar cover is one of the most iconic covers of recent times, and if you're going to pay homage, don't be half-hearted about it.

And I'm not talking iconic in terms of visual impact alone - they really were the glory days, when not only could a model be on a September cover, the same model could be on US Bazaar and US Vogue in the same month of September 1994. It was an event that you don't get anymore, now we get excited about the idea of a model potentially appearing on one US Vogue cover a year.

[surrealseven]

I think if you look at both covers closely, they don't really look that similar anymore, it's just the eye makeup