UK Harper's Bazaar April 2010 : Megan Fox by Paola Kudacki

[jal718]

Wishful thinking about US Bazaar, I do like this UK cover though

 

[mercyminx]

Not the greatest Megan fan, but she looks really powerful and beautiful here. And fashion eds look promising...

 

[MrFalconer]

The underarm area seems a little over photoshopped here though... just noticed.

 

[tigerrouge]

Three shots from the Megan Fox feature (dailymail.co.uk

 

[vogue28]

HQ Subscribers:


*scan by vogue28

 

[retailqueen]

Looks like any other Megan cover. this girl is boring and should stay in FHM.

 

[gossiping]

in real life the cover looks even better

 

[graziain]

Really nice!

 

[jal718]

Great scan by Vogue 28! This is a very classy cover despite what is felt about Megan's "acting" skills.

 

[TheCheekyCritic]

Awful and not just because I cant stand Megan Fox. Disappointed that UK Bazaar has used her actually.

On the contrary, I find this actually a very interesting choice from UK Harper's Bazaar. I certainly wasn't expecting to see her of all people on the cover of this particular publication, which makes it all the more refreshing to me personally. Sure, you could argue that they're just taking a stab at the commercially profitable phenomenon that is Megan Fox and nothing more, but so long as this isn't the first sign of a permanent change of direction in cover stars, I won't shun them for it. Especially if they do something interesting with her, because e.g. that W ed of hers was just plain boring.

Many actresses that have graced fashion magazines in the past are far from being capable actresses.

This I agree with. I don't think it's so much about who they feature, though that's inevitably something of a factor, but how. It's precisely why I dislike US Vogue so strongly as it is today. Instead of striving for content-wise depth, the magazine has become a mere Hollywood PR and promotional vehicle that lacks any study into their cover celebrities of choice beyond the person their PR people have painted for public use, not to mention a connection to the fashion industry beyond the designer clothing these people wear. And if only it were just the articles, but no. Nevermind going beyond the surface, try scratching it first. So Blake Lively and other arguably irrelevant people get covers -- fine. But why always the intentionally polished image?

It's only when a magazine is bi-annual or seasonal or when the same person's been featured several times before that one might start asking oneself if someone is really worthy of (another) cover in terms of accomplishments, whether they have or haven't to do with fashion. In the case of the monthly UK Bazaar, though, if the photoshoot turns out interesting, what difference does it make that the filmography of its actress-subject isn't to the liking of some, or even many?

I'm not that pleased with this particular cover, though. It looked great in thumbnail-size, and I love the colors and color combinations, but there has been a retouching cyclone here that Megan Fox really didn't need. Her amazing cheekbones have been smoothed out completely, and her face looks undefined. Why they'd do this to her of all people is dumbfounding to me. I also don't like the way the "Super Style" text partially covers the masthead. Can that really be intentional? The styling and pose I like, however. And let's not forget the obvious, Megan's amazing hair woot and body. It's not the best of covers but it's made me interested enough to look forward to what's inside, particularly on Megan. Hopefully, a stunning non-bland photoshoot.

 

[tigerrouge]

That's what I was hoping for, but those images from earlier don't suggest that's the sort of editorial we're going to get. I still can't wait to get my hands on the issue, though. I adore the magazine's design.

 

[liberty33r1b]

she's so overrated....

 

[sedirea]

Thank you Vogue28.

 

[Mchunu]

Foxxx.

 

[saann]

she is hot as hell and the cover is nice.. it's much better than her W cover

she might not be the greatest actress but I don't think she is as bad as people make her out to be. I loved her in Jennifers Body and I do think she has the ability to progress as an actress, and I do love that she acknowledges the fact that she knows it's her looks that have gotten her this far and that she isn't the greatest actress out there but that she does want to get better

it's such a refreshing change from other celebrities acting all serious when they haven't got the talent to back it up (Biel, Alba, Lively I'm looking at you)

 

[ettebe]

At least shes on this cover. I heard the US cover getting the girls from Jersey Shore. Which I think is a huge mistake.

 

[Crystalclear]

I actually quite like the colours of the cover - the whole look is clean, fresh, great for spring. This is the best I've seen Megan Fox look, it softens her a little bit.

 

[MON]

The Subs cover feels so effortless and lazy

 

[m.j.]

she's so overrated....

...that she needs a new word for overrated!

 

[MiaMe]

I just don't get all the hating.

Sure she's not a model, but really is she that far from it?

Sure, she's the girl from transformers, but so what. Davon Aoki did that God awful movie 2 Fast 2 Furious for pete's sake. But everyone loves her still.

What really is that bad about her. She's really beautiful and Bazaar are extremely discerning. They're not going to run a feature interview and cover with her if she wasn't an interesting/saleable and/or controversial person. All this gossip works - it makes people buy the magazine to read the interview to see why she's on the cover - Get it? No mag sales not mag.

This whole - she's not a model she shouldn't be on covers is so passe.