Xone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,368
- Reaction score
- 2,662
Blake Lively may not be much of an actress (I thought she was decent enough on GG and good in The Town, but obviously not something to write home about) but like another poster here mentioned, when did it become a rule that only Oscar winning actresses can be on the cover of Vogue? This isn't Entertainment Weekly or Variety. Acting talent has nothing to do with how much you "deserve" a fashion magazine cover. Blake has a reputation for being a nice person who is easy to work with, so I don't find it shocking that the people over at Vogue choose to work with her. She is a tall, slim, beautiful, a well-known figure, famous for not using a stylist but still (sometimes) wowing on the red carpet. She's endorsed major brands and now she's promoting a new website that most likely will involve fashion. Why is she less "deserving" of a cover than any other random actress or singer with something to promote? And to anyone complaining she doesn't have a film to promote, were you complaining last month when Lupita was on the cover? True, three covers is quite a bit, but she hasn't had one in over 4 years and she must get along well with Anna and I'm sure she has a great publicist. It's not exactly shocking that a well-regarded, very famous, very beautiful, "all-American" type of girl who moves with the right crowd is on the cover of a major fashion magazine. This happens more often than not when the new Vogue cover is revealed every month. We should all relax about something that shouldn't be taken too seriously, imo. A girl you don't care for getting a Vogue cover 4 years after her previous one isn't the end of the world. In a month, there will be someone else on the cover.
Couldn't agree more...but its month after month a pile of complaining posts just for the sake of it....thanks for sharing your point of view