Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by Miss Dalloway, Jan 31, 2016.
Snapped by HandbagQueen
She looks happy and radiant and natural. I don't love the dress itself, but I do think it works with the natural/carefree styling. The formatting pretty good, too. Marie Claire and Allure should take notes.
very fresh cover agreed the dress is somewhat mature but the smile and layout still looks nice
Oh I like this. She looks so happy. The dress though. Why?
She is one of those movie stars that i am just sick of seeing on covers, but i have to say the woman photographs like a dream. Probably the best cover girl among famous women.
She looks exactly like she's looked the last 18 or so years. Good for her but can we get something different?!
Ikr! It's so good it can in fact rival an Australian cover!
Wow, how the mighty have fallen (This is her first US Glamour cover, ever!). Her people used to keep her away from these service-like magazines during her heyday, but I guess she needs their vote and patronage now. The shot is season appropriate and passable, but it looks exceptionally basic. It actually pales in comparison to the rest of Glamour's recent covers - looks more like Red or Easy Living.
^ I think it's a very smart move on her part. Moving away from more "exclusive" fashion magazines into this area will probably expand her Goop readership - after all she isn't booking anything as an actress but as a businesswoman.
I like the cover. The dress is questionable from this shot, but it might look good in HQ.
Who is this smiling woman?
Where is the frosty, problematic ice queen I know and love...
She bore me to death. And this dress is not good choice for her.
Cover shot by Steve Pan.
Benn98 are you sure this is her first Glamour cover? I thought she did it several times over, from the 90s on, but then she been on so many covers, and they all blend into one, for me!
@Miss Dalloway: I dare anyone to prove me wrong on this one, lol. Gwyneth Paltrow has never covered American Glamour. You cannot tell me they never asked. She probably thought it beneath her to appear on these titles. The tragedy of the situation is that the likes of Nicole, Angelina, Renee, Drew etc booked not only Cosmo, Glamour, MC, yet still went on to nab Vogue, Harper's and W. It never harmed their brand. In fact, that diversity probably made them more bankable actresses overall, and ultimately she lagged behind. Anyway, this cover yet again reeks of Anna's machinations. Glamour gets Gwyneth, Gwyneth gets a broad audience, everybody wins.
Gwyneth snubbing Glamour doesn't seem likely.
She's covered the UK version several times and she's appeared on the US magazine 'Good Housekeeping'. So I can't see it amounting to much.
She seems so pretentious for Glamour readers, but, who knows.
The image is much brighter and more cheerful than the last few months dark grey trend. So that's a welcome change.
Never even been much of a one for Gwyneth Paltrow, and this cover isn't exactly selling her to me either. A better quality image is on Daily Mail's website and Gwyneth's not even looking down the lens. She's looking off to the side, while squinting her eyes and the shot just screams outtake.
I actually don't mind Gywn and I actually like the cover. Very Vogue in my opinion.
The photoshop on the eyes is so creepy, very ghoulish
I don't like her at all and I am tired of seeing her on the covers all the time, she does nothing.
Anyways the editorials are posted on photocouture show if anyone is interested.
# TEAM GWYNETH
PHOTOGRAPHER: STEVEN PAN
CELEB: GWYNETH PALTROW
STYLING: NATASHA ROYT
MAKE UP: GEORGIE EISDELL
NAILS: TRACY CLEMENS
THE FUTURE IS NOW
PHOTOGRAPHER: PATRICK DEMARCHELIER
MODELS: CHIHARU OKUNUGI, PETER BADENHOP, CHRISTOPHER FOLZ & RYAN TIFT
STYLIST: JILLIAN DAVISON
HAIR: HOLLI SMITH
MAKE UP: SUSIE SOBOL
NAILS: RIEKO OKUSA