Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by gunsnroses, Sep 3, 2018.
I don't have much of an issue with their being the whole crew present but this just isn't a particularly strong image? It's not even in the slightest bit fashion-lead, Brooklyn appears to be squinting at the sun and Harper's pose is a little bizarre? Surprised they didn't get David in there also.
This looks like a poor man’s Tommy Hilfiger ad. Where’s the fashion element? Did Edward decide to give them a free family portrait? If that’s the case, well by all means give one. But don’t let us the masses see it.
Looks like the default picture in a photo frame that you throw away after buying it
their art direction is exactly like W now. wow!
Twats. What is with the bandana headbands? FFS.
From reading the editors letter online it states that there will be an Ed shot by Nick Knight styled/featuring Kate Moss and it’s based on a night out and the morning after, sounds interesting! Would have loved for Kate to have been the cover!!
i won't be going anywhere near this !!
Simple, but beautiful portrait of her with her kids. I will take this over another cover with David!! And it nicely puts all the lies Daily Mail reported about, in perspective. The amount of BS they publish, and people still believe them is crazy!
If this isn’t preparation for a divorce announcement, I don’t know what is.
LMAO! No one will convince me this isn't a People Magazine outtake.
Absolute garbage, and I actually like Vicky. Edward did her dirty with this mess tho.
Does this make Harper the youngest cover girl in UK Vogue history? Anyone know?
I let this cover to Tatler. I don't care about Victoria and her kids. She has nothing to tell more than we all know. One of the kids give us some Royal Tenenbaums realness
It’s a perfectly fine image, but it’s not a Vogue cover. I love Victoria, so I’m happy to see her here, but her previous covers have been significantly better than this offering. For once I’m actually looking forward to the subscribers cover...although, knowing my luck, they’ll probably just use the same shot but with less text.
Not remotely interested in this family, but even that aside, I think it lacks the warmth and authenticity of a family portrait. The only ones being genuine here are the smaller kids and the dog. Even in a family setting Victoria still tries to give the best side of her face, her best pose. Wouldn't expect any less from a fashion mum.
Compare this cover to the Madonna one shot by Tim Walker and it'll pale in comparison.
What's the point of this other than kissing celebrity bum?
Is this People magazine or Vogue.
People speculate that Enninful could replace Wintour, but if this is what we'd get, forget it.
Zero interest in them but if they were going for the whole family, why not include David as well?
Didn't want to believe those Beckham family cover rumours were true and yet here we are. What a snore - I don't care about her children and this shot isn't cover worthy in the slightest (never mind the fact the oldest one is hanging on the end like an afterthought). The only one I'm interested in is the dog.
This looks like those family portraits that come with the frame you purchase, and subsequently throw away.
Does Victoria look good, of course.
Do the children look lovely, no doubt.
Is it a nice photograph, yes.
Is this a Vogue cover? No. This puts the word “pedestrian” in a whole new level. This puts all the other “pedestrian covers” we’ve branded, into a whole new level of glamour.
And I agree,
Don’t like this at all!