W December 2010 : Katherine Heigl by Patrick Demarchelier

[t-rex]

Daily Mail​

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

i think the baby should have been alone
Katherine is doing nothing for me on this cover

 

[ad032915]

What is this magazine turning into?
Jesus Christ in heaven.

 

[MyNameIs]

I don't hate it, tbqh. Heigl bugs me to no end, but the cover itself is pretty.

 

[tanii94]

Would've preferred Madonna & Lourdes, TBH. It's nice cover but I can't stand Katherine Heigl.

 

[t-rex]

This is relevant:

W’s September issue, under editor in chief Stefano Tonchi, was down 14 percent to 30,000 single copies

WWD

 

[blueorchid]

Could this be anymore desperate? Who cares about Katherine Heigl and her baby? Seriously...

Would've preferred Madonna & Lourdes, TBH. It's nice cover but I can't stand Katherine Heigl.

Lourdes isn't adopted!

 

[Luxx]

Interesting. There is nothing wrong with this picture, in fact I quite like it but there is still something disarming about seeing it on the cover of W. This feels very Vanity Fair to me, so much so that I'm wondering who shot it.

The list of subjects on the cover doesn't exactly thrill me either - Usher, Jenna Jameson? Not my cup of tea really.

That said, baby Naleigh is ADORABLE.

 

[kokurox]

The photographer is Patrick Demarchelier.

 

[Pedro]

ahahahh
ahahah
ahahha
.
.
.
it's sad to see into what this magazine has turned

 

[gossiping]

lets just say i am not a fan

 

[VogueGirl8910]

Boring.

 

[LabelWhore4]

Baby Love...

 

[Empress Merel]

What is this magazine turning into?
Jesus Christ in heaven.

You read minds.
Who cares about Katherine, honestly?

 

[honeycombchild]

I can't say I'm interested in Katherine at all, but as a photo, I think it's quite nice. I like how it looks sort of...like a painting? Maybe that's just my perception of it however. Either way, the fact it's Katherine is kind of irrelevant for me. Fairly nice image at the end of the day.

Could have been much worse. (Read as: Kim Kardashian naked.)

 

[CrisGalaxy]

well atleast the logo isnt white again
The covers of W may be bad but I still like the content, they have great articles

 

[windlagoon]

oh god. as cute as the baby is (is it a gimmick to make people forgt how pathetic the new w is?) and as good as the photograpy is, this remains not good for me. i guess i am making early conclusions but i admired what w did with celebrities and making them edgier (eg. klein with the beckhams, bruce willis) and interesting...like they had a new side that isn't shown to the public. and this looks like a fancy tabloid now. meh.

at first i was intrigued by this new approach but i guess tonchi doesn't understand that the w reader isn't thaaaaaaaaaaaat interested in reading celebrity gossip or their lives or their babies. we want more editorials! w is losing so much with tonchi's new position in the magazine...the amazing typography is gone, the old logo and cover font are gone too (i really liked the new logo but the old one was so much better). i guess that if alex white leaves, w will be an official DISASTER.
idk, i'll just wait and see. i guess i am a bit dumb by saying all of this so early...it's just the cover but i am not liking the new w at all.

 

[Handbag Queen]

Ridiculous cover. The past few have all been.

 

[Handbag Queen]

Sorry, but the "Family Issue" theme for a fashion magazine is not working for me at all. One doesn't relate to the other, in my book. I can read Redbook or Ladie's Home Journal if I need to combine the two.

 

[versustito]

boring ..