US Harper's Bazaar March 2011 : Kim Kardashian by Terry Richardson

[BonesAndOil]

RIP harper's. I don't think anyone above the d list is going to show up at the funeral either.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

You know she interviews her too right. It's bizarre bazaar.

I have a feeling that Elizabeth must have loved this.

It's funny to me when people act like Elizabeth Taylor is somehow the epitome of class and grace, no doubt she was talented and a great beauty, but I think people look back on that period in time and think everything and everyone in Old Hollywood was flawless. Lots of those actresses could give ones like Lindsay Lohan a run for their money in terms of scandal.

 

[MON]

Tacky editorial. The 4th shot could`ve been a better cover IMO!

 

[Lina5]

someone wrote that kim is not known outside the US: unfortunately, many more countries can see the E! channel and there is quite a large group of women who think the kardashian show is the only thing worth watching on television ...

but I am definitely not buying any issue with kim on cover, this is where I draw the line.

 

[GlamorousBoy]

still the same

 

[LolaSvelt]

Has anyone read the godawful interview? That b*tch has clearly never seen any of her films. All she did was talk about her fragrance, dreamy men she has worked with and jewelry. I'm not expecting a cinephile, but please give the woman some respect.

Vapid skank.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

As soon as I saw the topic title, I knew there was going to be a lot of hate for this. And while I'm not interested in Kim whatsoever, she can look pretty and they could have done something interesting with her. But ofcourse they didn't do that and we got this cover. I really don't understand this magazine anymore, but looking at all the comments above me, I'm not the only one.
And it's not about the cover stars because a magazine has to sell and I'm sure Kim sells well, but it's what to do with their stars.

 

[TheCheekyCritic]

this is the worst cover in fashion history.

This is not the worst cover in fashion history.

I dont mind the cover. It's decent coming from US Bazaar (as it is today, at any rate), and actually rather lovely coming from Kim, whose photography standard is generally that of awkward.

It's the editorial that perplexes me. Purely in terms of facial features I can see how they saw Kim as Cleopatra, and if she was a better model and Terry a better photographer the result could've been at least decent, perhaps even good.

But the fact of the matter is that it is neither. To say that this is Kim seriously channeling Liz Taylor's Cleopatra is just preposterously silly -- that movie was clearly not even in the same building when this ed was photographed -- while it's nowhere near fun enough to pass as a deliberate spoof or caricature of her (though they got the level of kitsch about right, and that headshot is hilarious ).

That last shot just tops it all off. They should've just put that first so we'd have known to give this one a miss.

 

[tigerrouge]

If someone like David LaChapelle had shot Kim in an over-the-top kitsch Cleopatra extravaganza, it would be acknowledging the lack of taste - while turning it into something worth a look.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[dfl-001]

I have a feeling that Elizabeth must have loved this.

It's funny to me when people act like Elizabeth Taylor is somehow the epitome of class and grace, no doubt she was talented and a great beauty, but I think people look back on that period in time and think everything and everyone in Old Hollywood was flawless. Lots of those actresses could give ones like Lindsay Lohan a run for their money in terms of scandal.

I'm sure you're right on both points:
Elizabeth certainly has a sharp sense of humor and has endured plenty of scandal.
Not to mention a period in the 70s when she looked more like Roseanne Barr and less like the beauty icon she's known
( Google any paparazzi pics from that time )
My point was, after all that, Elizabeth still redeems her self with her talent. Kim is so vapid. Which makes it all seem odd to me.

 

[Zposen]

You know Vogue is next...it's happening. Kim SELLS, like crazy.

Actually, Kim doesn't sell like crazy. WWD magazine had their annual best-sellling cover girls article... Kim Kardashian wasn't mention at all... not one of her covers was a best seller including September Allure, Shape and W magazine (that was sorta controversial)... and she promotes her covers on twitter, events and whatnot.

It does beg the question why this p*rn star lands coveted fashion magazine covers: W, Allure, Glamour, Shape, Cosmo... and I agree Vogue is next...

My guess is all the publicity the magazine gets from putting her mug on their cover... even if it doesn't translate to big dollars...but people will talk about Kim and therefore, the magazine...

Back on the subject, this cover is pretty bad as well as the editorial even for p*rn star Kim Kardashian

 

[Vanessa12]

Kim Sales From WWD

Shape : Best-selling issue of the year
Allure : Third most popular seller of the year
W : Second highest seller of the year (tied with Megan Fox in March).

KEEPING UP WITH THE KARDASHIAN COVERS: Kim Kardashian and her sisters have become the gift that keeps on giving for celebrity weeklies such as In Touch, Life & Style and Us Weekly. During the past year, they have provided a fairly accurate barometer of the family’s popularity, and the constant coverage isn’t likely to slow down anytime soon. (In January, the E network will begin airing a spin-off show, “Kourtney & Kim Take New York.”)

Kardashian has proven selling power with weeklies, and it appears that she’s also been embraced by the monthly readers. According to Rapid Report (through November), Shape had its best-selling issue of the year in June on newsstands, with Kardashian on the cover. The reality star appeared on Allure’s September cover, which marked its third most popular seller of the year, and most recently, W made a splash by featuring her naked on its November art issue. W’s Kardashian buzz led to its second highest seller of the year (tied with Megan Fox in March). With figures like these, expect to see more and more and more of the Kardashians in the new year.

http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashi...-the-kardashian-covers-winter-equinox-3408983

 

[hfgl]

If someone like David LaChapelle had shot Kim in an over-the-top kitsch Cleopatra extravaganza, it would be acknowledging the lack of taste - while turning it into something worth a look.
Posted via Mobile Device

Actually, that sounds really good, i don't think it would've been too extravagant, seeing as it's HB, just the right amount of Lachapelle.

 

[Wicked Halo]

cover: so...much...red...it hurts my eyes actually
the editorial: had it been shot by someone else and maybe it could have been interesting, but when you together a lame untalented photographer and and an even lamer "model" figure as kim, results cannot be expected to be good!

 

[honeyisle]

Terry Richardson is so f***ing overrated.

 

[Zposen]

Oops I guess I was wrong... I only read an expert of the article from vogue.com and it didn't mention her at all.

Yep... we will be seeing her mug on all the covers...

 

[TheCheekyCritic]

Terry Richardson is so f***ing overrated.

Not so much overrated as overused, though. His limited photographic and stylistic range is really only well-suited for Purple editorials and GQ, and yet for some reason he still pops up for things like this from time to time. Although he certainly has a place in the world of "fashion" photography, personally, I would consider it neither a personal loss nor a loss to the magazine if we never saw another Terry ed in Harper's Bazaar again.

 

[maricris11]

thestylistsite.com

 

[Label Basher]

^ Winona & Marc

 

[Eccentricity]

i have to maintain that this is the worst and most incongrous cover in fashion history

the editorial, furthermore, is the worst executed concept i have ever seen in a fashion magazine

RIP Harpers Bizzare