UK Vogue November 2016 : Emily Blunt by Josh Olins

[Oxymore]

[

 

[dodencebt]

I am so glad Emily got a cover but this is not good. The dress is competing with the background, the shot could have been cropped better, the "hands on hips" pose is hilarious and "The real issue - a model-free zone"? Seriously? What are models, CGI?

 

[sixtdaily]

So models are not real women or real people? Shame on you Vogue UK! Using these "unreal creatures" like Kate Moss and co doesn't seem to be a problem when you need to sell more copies!

 

[djowodjo30]

Is this her first Vogue cover, right?

I like the cover. The pose, colour and background lovely.

 

[Oxymore]

I love it! She looks great. It's a good cover for November.

 

[kokobombon]

I don´t like one thing of this cover.

 

[MON]

Emily!! Let this be the first of many Vogue covers (ahem US Vogue, ahem).

I like it, but I expected a lot from it. I wanted a smiling cover from her like Gigi Hadid's February. This is too heavy of a cover for me. The background plus what she's wearing looks good, but its not appropriate for the cover. The print with the layout (plus color) does not look appealing. Reading the taglines gave me an instant headache.

And it took me 10 seconds to believe this was her. That says a lot.

 

[Nymphaea]

It's nice, it's lovely, but she's drowning in the background unfortunately.

 

[Srdjan]

I love the cover and the mood here! The orange, the dress, the nature in the back!

 

[ThatGuyPaul]

Love this

 

[febylous]

Happy to see Emily, but this doesn't look like a picture from a professional photoshoot at all. It's like they just captured her when she just passed by in a park - and it's not her fault!

what does that "the real issue" even mean?

 

[liberty33r1b]

her face looks too photoshopped....

 

[HeatherAnne]

At least models don't do whatever she is doing to her face.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

Yay! Great to see Emily finally landing a Vogue cover. I've always felt, even though she gets great roles, she was very underrated. Both in awards recognition and magazine covers.

 

[Benn98]

Is this her first Vogue cover, right?

Yep, it's her first, oddly enough.

It seems British Vogue is trying to copy what Harper's is doing, albeit in an awfully shoddy way. I'm not a fan of this shot, nor her attitude. And Emily better be in a train in her edit, otherwise I don't get the blatant tagline. Who are this magazine trying to court? One month you get Cara in a puffer jacket, all youthful in the streets of London, the next you get Emily or Reneé in mumsy florals in a garden.

Re the 'model -free' tagline, I'm personally not surprised, to be honest. This concept has Alexandra written all over it. It used to be a thing many years ago (Brigitte famously ditched models for their covers, only to return to it with their tail between their legs). But it's just such an odd idea to push in 2016, where every woman irrespective of profession are believed to have legitimacy and a voice. So it's weird to see Vogue being so hypocritical about it.

 

[tigerrouge]

I buy fashion magazines because they offer a sort of alternate dimension where people can experiment with "appearances". Sometimes they sell us our own personal fantasies, other times they bring us looks we could never have imagined by ourselves. But if I want realness of any sort, it won't be a fashion magazine that I turn to.

So I get that it's handy to have a theme, especially when promoting the issue, but I'm disappointed to hear about this one. It's very UK Vogue to go for the mundane angle.

 

[VogueDisciple93]

That was not the dress for that setting, the cover looks like an optical illusion with her blending into while also competing with the background. Her pose and hair are also bad.

 

[MyNameIs]

What a dumb tagline. The real issue? Models free zone? You're running a fashion magazine. Models are an integral part of fashion. If someone doesn't want to see models, maybe they shouldn't be buying a fashion magazine in the first place. What's next? Fashion free zone? The worst case of pandering I've ever seen, and that's saying something.

On the plus side, finally an issue for the Kendalls and Gigis of the world.

 

[whitewine82]

I hated that blonde hair on her, and "model free zone"? Oh god...

 

[jeffandtheworld]

Emily looks really vibrant on the cover. Overall a very British housewife cover. Good amount of text but 'model-free zone'? Really Vogue?
So that perfectly drawn eyeliners (which suits her pretty) and a dyed blonde hair are considered real? You can not just randomly throw a theme on something. That is just stupid.