UK Vanity Fair July 2010 : Dakota Fanning, Ashley Greene & Bryce Dallas Howard | Page 2 | the Fashion Spot

UK Vanity Fair July 2010 : Dakota Fanning, Ashley Greene & Bryce Dallas Howard

It seems slightly dumb to me...like... surely Twilight should have been the US cover, and Elizabeth Taylor the British? I'm not quite sure why, but to me it would just seem to benefit them more to have Twilight stars on the US cover, which is by far the bigger market for them?

This is what I don't understand... why would we get the Twi-stars? But anyway, there also seems to be another price increase? I was sure there was one not too long ago, or maybe because of the different covers?



"Twilight's Blood Sister"
Celebs: Ashley Greene, Dakota Fanning, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nikki Reed (in group shot) and Julia Jones (in group shot)
Photographer: Norman Jean Roy
Styling: Jessica Diehl


scanned in by me

 
The price of Vanity Fair does irritate me.

I noticed US Vogue went up to £5 this month too, which usually it only does when it's a thick issue. I'm guessing from now on that's £5 a month too.. You'd think they'd leave price hikes until bigger issues, with the Summer issues always selling less than other issues, and always being much thinner on content!
 
Thank God they decided to make an independent cover! I really like this, the colors, the poses and the simplicity of it.

BUT, what I hate is the fact that you really can't identify it apart from US Vanity Fair. The text and layout is just the same! I will mistakenly think and buy this as the American one if there's no BRITISH written in the copies here in the Philippines
 
The price of Vanity Fair does irritate me.

If I didn't subscribe, I doubt I'd ever buy an issue other than the September one. If I were actually paying £4.20 for it, I'd expect this magazine to be twice the size it currently is, in terms of content.

And as you said earlier, it's bewildering as to why we have the lesser Twilight girls on the front of this issue, because this is hardly a teen magazine. Even if we go with the commercial argument that 'people will buy it because it's about the film', then boy, are they going to get a shock when it comes to the rest of the content.

And yet... and yet... I don't care for the girls but I like the glamour. Although that's unfair to Dakota Fanning, she would actually belong on a solo cover of Vanity Fair - given a good shot of her - because she's got a body of work behind her already and she shows no sign of slowing down.
 
where the hands are leading make it kind of confusing.
 
Is Queen Elizabeth actually doing a cover? This sounds fishy, but I'd love to see it! :woot: Go Queen!!

Vanity Fair has turned into a children's book, are they desperate for sales or something?

Who exactly do Bryce and Julia play in Twilight? I like the series, but I don't wanna see it everywhere. Ashley Greene is insanely beautiful.

And there's something very very disturbing about seeing teenagers being dressed like 1950s glamour divas. It's so ugly.
 
No... she's not... If you read back, it was a comment on the times the UK/US edition have had separate covers, one of which previously was the Queen.

She has no cover, and nothing to do with this edition..

Bryce takes over the role of Victoria from Eclipse onwards, and I think Julia is playing Bree?
 
Got my subscription copy, and again, this issue is the size of nothing (134 pgs). Like manuva said, it does look like a glamorous séance, it's the sight of the white fringing, reminiscent of Edwardian curtains or tablecloths, although I am impressed by blueorchid finding the original inspiration (the Vogue cover above). There’s an irritating touch of photoshop on the upper left arm, where the Vanity Fair title has cut through the fringing.

The letters page gives space to those praising Grace Kelly on the cover, and a guy who said he just taped together the pages that mentioned Tiger Woods so he wouldn’t have to read them, followed by a mini-interview with Mike Tyson, who is apparently now a vegetarian and enjoys pigeon racing, and a piece about people squabbling online about the future of film criticism. Christopher Hitchens wonders about the possible sex impulse powering Islamic martyrdom.

The best part of the issue is “The Thriller Diaries” about the making of the video - we can’t imagine a world where Thriller doesn‘t exist, but at the start, the record company had no plans to release the track as a single, never mind spend all that money making a short feature film for it. Others recount that this was the pinnacle of Michael’s creative output, and a turning point:

“In the Off The Wall/Thriller era, Michael was in a constant of becoming,” [said] Glen Brunman, then Jackson’s publicist at his record company Epic. “It was all about the music, until it also became about the sales and the awards, and something changed forever.”

A rather flat article looks at Sean Penn’s involvement in Haiti, and it neither trashes his intentions nor overly lauds him for his actions, it’s more of a positive account of the mild ludicrousness of what he’s doing and who he’s doing it with. It suggests that this is part of some mid-life crisis - but Penn’s entire life has been spent in a state of crisis, perpetually railing against perceived injustices, so I think it’s more the case that - at last - he’s expending his “oppositional” energies on a situation that’s so bad to begin with, he can only be of help.

The Twilight article says nothing at all, it’s like an extended picture caption, produced to support the photos. A few financial/social articles follow, although the piece about a man tracing his Bohemian heritage back to numerous castles does have some rather sad and empty shots of slightly neglected rooms, acting as museum pieces, where the life went out of them a long time ago.
 
I hate Dakota's expression :yuk: but the rest of the girls look gorgeous.
 
That there is no Elizabeth Taylor article at all in the UK edition, up until today, I thought it must be some copyright issue, but given that the letters are seemingly going to be serialised in a British newspaper, that cannot be the case. It is bizarre that we have press releases which have garnered the magazine widespread publicity in the UK, about an article which is not included in the issue.
 
That there is no Elizabeth Taylor article at all in the UK edition, up until today, I thought it must be some copyright issue, but given that the letters are seemingly going to be serialised in a British newspaper, that cannot be the case. It is bizarre that we have press releases which have garnered the magazine widespread publicity in the UK, about an article which is not included in the issue.

That is indeed ridiculous. Perhaps the newspaper has some kind of exclusive rightto publish the letters for the first time in Britain?
 
This is what the US edition should look like instead of bothering with old hollywood!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
214,461
Messages
15,262,758
Members
88,477
Latest member
wayneji
Back
Top