W November 2008 : Angelina Jolie by Brad Pitt

[MissMagAddict]

Originally Posted by BerlinRocks

no seriously. what about the fashion editorials ?

No info available at their website yet. They tend to drag it out forever lately... I noticed with Sept & especially Oct they did.

[lucy92]

70 rolls of film?
i wonder how many makeup artists they employed as well..

this is the height of vanity....

[ChrissyM]

i actually kind of love that there is so much discussion going on about this...

i'm sure that was part of W's goal in doing this..

it's certainly creating some buzz...

and maybe they put the photos on the art issue just to be thought-provoking and to make people re-think what they perceive to be art (even if they still do not think that these particular images qualify)...

i like that I, and so many other tFS-ers in this thread, am thinking about this and that there are a lot of really intersting arguments/debates going on...

well done every one

also, i'm actually getting kind of excited to get this in the mail..
the brangelina sneak-peek pics don't look half bad and even if i'm not thinking of them as "art" i'm intrigued enough by the family that I'll enjoy looking at them...

and i'm excited for the actual art issue itself and which artists it will feature and perhaps introduce...

i'm sure there will be a really cool, artistic fashion photo shoot somewhere in there...

[kroqjock]

Okay, brace yourselves, everyone! I have the issue in hand and I am making UHQ scans of this MASSIVE editorial as I type this. The full edit is 32 pages long with over 20 pictures of Angelina and some of her various, interchangeable kids. Here's the breakdown: eight of the pages are blank (?), three pages are just Angie's kids & dog, four pages of useless text, and 17 photos of Angie herself. Got the math down?

Since the pages are so freakin' large, scanning them all properly will take me a day or two. But I did manage to get the first six pages down, so here ya go! You won't find these giant scans anywhere else but here!



MEGA-UHQ SCANS - PART ONE OF THREE







My next post will contain the next six scans including a gratuitous (but blurry) shot of Angelina's naked behind, so come back for that, wont'cha?

[surrealseven]

kroqjock, Can u make an editorial review of the fashion eds for us? I think most of us will be more interested in that than Angelina

[kroqjock]

^^Well, I can't really review all the articles because they're all so boring as hell. This issue is strictly Art-based, so don't expect anything flashy. There's very little fashion talk and ZERO fashion editorials with any models.


Unless you happen to know about any of the artists/painters/designers/sculptors that are featured in the issue, then there is absolutely NO other reason to buy this issue other than the Angelina edit.


Once I'm done scanning Angelina's edit, this issue is going straight into the Recycle Bin. To nicely sum it up: THIS ISSUE BLOWS.

[Cinthia]

thanks for scanning.i'm surprised the pictures are sinister but i like it.

[surrealseven]

^W is going downhill, baby.

Now even Interview is better than W

[CarMELita]

Can't wait for more pic of Angie - thank you so much for scanning, Kroqjock!!

[Harumi]

The preview pictures are mostly rubbish (except the one of her with Madd and Shi against a wall, remind me of a photo shoot with Sophia Loren).
Some of the scanned pictures seem more interesting.

I find hilarious this outrage about W becoming celebrity obsessed. Becoming?
Hello!?! W has been celebrity-obsessed for ages. As for the content, why nobody says it like it is: their feature is so elitist that they make Vogue look populist. They are obsessed with obscure European socialites, royals, random rich people, and 'legendary' (to 50 people) hostesses who need to flog their latest book 'How to Receive 100 people in total intimacy'. Even their fashion or jewelry features are really about money.
The only reason W gets away with being the American version of Tatler on this forum is because of consistently good fashion editorials. And even this has been lacking lately, imo.
I just don't think this publication is deserving of the high status it has in here. I use to think it did. Not anymore.
So the outrage about them 'lowering' themselves to the Brangelina level is just as artificial as the pictures, imo.

[Nemezide]

i dont know what is more annoying: this ed itself or the fact that the half of the worl thinks that it is "artistic"

[Melly5525]

I love Angelina but this doesnt seem like a W cover or at least what it used to be I havent renewed my subscription and dont plan to I havent enjoyed an issue in a looong time.

[CarMELita]

I don't know anything about W Magazine. I only know they occasionally have some great editorials and covers.
And god bless them if they turn out to be Brangelina obsessed, because me, myself and I are a bit obsessed about them too :-))
The cover is absolutely lovely IMO and those few pics already posted are adorable. But then I love b&w photography in general. Seen with a professional eye they might be rubbish, but to me they look very sensual and intimately. Of course I know that taking grainy b&w photos doesn't turn them into art, nevertheless I think he's captured some wonderful moments, the picture with Shiloh and Pax for example has got a great composition and I like the combination of the different textures (dress, wall, hair). But that's just my humble opinion as a consumer of course.
Very much looking forward to see the whole editorial.

[McClaire]

whats artistic about blurry black pictures? it's the equivalent of the Paris Hilton sex tape in night vision.i mean the second to last one? pointless. i'm sorry but this is so stupid. Brad is not a photography. i'm suprised his thumb isnt in the photos.

[surrealseven]

I don't think W is the American version of Tatler.