The Official Men's Magazine Thread

[tigerrouge]

I've found a variation on the UK GQ cover on ebay.co.uk, seller dwla1983, which is also the image Conde Nast use as the cover on the official GQ website... has the subscriber/newsstand two-cover syndrome spread to men's magazines now as well?

 

[moussemaker]

US Esquire May 2008 : Jessica Simpson

source www.sweetkisses.us

 

[tigerrouge]

When a woman strikes an ironic or humorous pose, it helps if she's actually known for her irony or humour. If she's not, then it starts to look plain weird.

And the image will catch people's eyes, but what man is actually going to buy a magazine with an picture of a woman shaving on the front of it. He's going to think he's subliminally advertising to the world that he rather likes she-males.

 

[vogue28]

^

your very right.

 

[candysweet21]

huh?! WTH IS THAT COVER?! It's horrible.

Papa Joe must be so proud...

 

[nothingless]

Omg, what a weird cover. *raises eyebrow* Is this some kind of...fetish I'm not getting?

 

[moussemaker]

the original: Virna Lisi
source http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1965&month=3

 

[cold_sun]

Uah im completely perturbed, by Jessica generally and than this cover/pose

 

[sethii]

oh kay

It's just a bad idea even if they chose a person who could pull it off a little.

^^ the old cover at least has some sort of comedy expression. But Jessica actually looks like she is shaving!

 

[tigerrouge]

In 1965, magazine-buying people were not doused in incessant low-brow cultural imagery, so a picture of a woman shaving would be recognised a comment on social change, from a magazine constantly breaking new ground with its visual impact.

In 2008, a picture of Jessica Simpson shaving would be recognised as a sign that her career has stalled and she'd like some controversy to get her name back in news columns, to boost her sales of own-branded edible moisturiser.

 

[Madhuri]

Why exactly is she on the cover of any magazine right now? Her music and movie careers are D.O.A. She has no projects out. What gives?

 

[SusanSuperstar]

I knew I had seen this before.....Jessica can´t pull that off, she looks too weird, and I thought Esquire is a men´s magazine? Do men think that is hot??????????????????

 

[Moonchild]

Why exactly is she on the cover of any magazine right now? Her music and movie careers are D.O.A. She has no projects out. What gives?

That was my exact thought!

In general it seems like Jessica Simpson is so desperate for fame and attention, it's quite sad.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^^I really dont get arguments like this AT ALL, and dont get me wrong i dislike JS aswell but its such a dated subject that is simply tired and i dont get why on earth is it brought up all the time.Do you people buy magazines?

Because as someone who buys at least 30 magazines a month, this is nothing new!Since when did todays stars need something to promote to be on the cover?We are soooo past that in todays society and its been like that in the past few years.Its all about selling the copies.

This covers purpose totally failed!!

 

[SnejanaIsMyMuse]

The Virna Lisi version is way better.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

I knew I had seen this before.....Jessica can´t pull that off, she looks too weird, and I thought Esquire is a men´s magazine? Do men think that is hot??????????????????

Esquire is the thinking mans magazines... the type of men's magazine that, historically, has had a fairly large female readership (myself included) because of the content. It is very rare that you see any 'cheesecake' looking pictures of actresses and models.


I quite like the cover, even if it's a redeux. Jessica usually looks like a man, yet here (ironically) she looks very pretty and feminine.

 

[Moonchild]

^^I really dont get arguments like this AT ALL, and dont get me wrong i dislike JS aswell but its such a dated subject that is simply tired and i dont get why on earth is it brought up all the time.Do you people buy magazines?

Because as someone who buys at least 30 magazines a month, this is nothing new!Since when did todays stars need something to promote to be on the cover?We are soooo past that in todays society and its been like that in the past few years.Its all about selling the copies.

This covers purpose totally failed!!

Okay first of all every argument can be deemed tired and dated... everything gets discussed to no end so really just expect it and move on. Furthermore no one was claiming that this was something new. It was simply just an initial reaction to seeing Jessica Simpson on the cover. "Why her?"

And F.Y.I I buy plenty of magazines and if you still don't see the connection between the cover subjects and the fact that they have something (movie, music, sobriety lol) to promote then whoa... So I don't think "we" are so past that. Not by a long shot and at least not with American Magazines.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^^Really?What did Lindsay Lohan have to promote for HB.etc?Nothing, take a look at 2007 magazines: most of covers went to celebrites that had nothing to promote, and i fail to see what has this to do with continent from which the magazine is from, its the same thing in Europe and (especially) America.

I just think its pointless to no end to bring this argument time and time again, so when you bring it up, i would return the advice, and tell you to expect replies like mine because no one will tell me that its SUCH a bizzare thing to see a celebrity on the cover of a magazine who has nothing to promote.

And yes of course there are still stars that are on the covers promoting their latest "products" i never claimed otherwise its simply not a predisposition to get a cover these days.

 

[MeMe7]

Why exactly is she on the cover of any magazine right now? Her music and movie careers are D.O.A. She has no projects out. What gives?

bingo! you took the words right out of my mouth . I dont understand what it takes to get a magazine cover ...there are so many others that would be more deserving.

 

[tigerrouge]

Esquire is the thinking mans magazines... the type of men's magazine that, historically, has had a fairly large female readership (myself included) because of the content. It is very rare that you see any 'cheesecake' looking pictures of actresses and models.

In the context of its own history, it's great to see a magazine revisiting covers and updating them for a new audience.

But in the context of today's newsstand, it's using a star who doesn't have a background in exploring interesting topics via their appearance - Ms Simpson is no Madonna. No-one is going to start debating the changing social role of women via this shot of Jessica, which was the idea behind the original. And that dismissive reaction is due to the public profile of this particular celebrity. So I do wonder, what is the purpose in magazine reinterpreting the archive image using her?

If the magazine is trying to challenge perceptions of celebrity or bimbo-ism, that message isn't coming through very loudly.

Imagine if it had have been someone like Madonna shaving? That might have given a message closer to the original Esquire ethos. Though she's too busy at the moment, appearing on covers to challenge our notions about age.

And there's plenty of cheesecake on the cover - when the women appear on the front, around four times a year, they're always wearing underwear or bedsheets, they never get to wear a suit like the men do, even if this month, they get to shave like one.