US Vogue December 2025 : Timothée Chalamet by Annie Leibovitz

[OllieJE]

We are witnessing the dying of a fashion legend. This event is an epic tragedy.

 

[alwaysademo]

It's been dead for years. As ugly as this is, it's really a sign of life.
Waiting for the upside.

 

[90sfan]

Anna Wintour, open your eyes!!
Annie Leibowitz is a photoshop joke who only took a few good pictures with the guidance of her girlfriend Sontag.
And the Vogue’s creative director Raul Martinez is such a spineless cheeseball… I’m shocked he’s not getting fired after this disaster. Embarrassing for everyone involved.

 

[yslforever]

I have learnt to NOT open a thread when I see «Annie Leibovitz » in the title. I wanted to remain virgin but alas it’s all over internet too.

Just a confirmation of the mediocrity and irrelevance of Anna W. Glad she’s leaving, should have earlier. It’s 15 year too late

Don’t forget the trash - Annie, Kendall, the Met Gala and your Vogue World - with you

 

[tigerrouge]

When Timothee turned up on the cover of the British edition in 2022, I felt like Vogue and I had parted ways back then, because whoever that was for, it wasn't for me.

I think some people liked it, because that cover shot wasn't the worst (in their eyes), but for me, Vogue had chosen to drift away from its definition as a woman's fashion magazine, and I didn't have to follow.

At least the Met Gala covers with various men made some sense, because they were tied into an important event for the magazine, and that did feel like something special.

But this US Vogue cover just feels like yet more drifting away from the magazine's core. Will they be running more ads about their "Vogue Values" on pages where they couldn't secure paid advertising?

 

[Xone]

So next issue will be better for sure..anything can beat that cover up...even Kendall and family...

Anna needs to do politics and that's all.

The CN board cannot be celebrating this....

 

[Patricio]

Anna's obsession with celebrities killed the magazine.

 

[jeremydante]

I get it, she is trolling who still buy this panflet

Wait. You mean, pamphlet?

 

[jeremydante]

Anna's obsession with celebrities killed the magazine.

This is simply not true. Print was challenged as the public grew tired of seeing Supermodels dominating, celebrities actually helped revive ad sales and recapture public interest at a time, it's been well documented. Quick research can debunk this:

New York Times: "Trading on Hollywood Magic; Celebrities Push Models Off Women's Magazine Covers" (1999)

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/30/business/trading-on-hollywood-magic-celebrities-push-models-off-women-s-magazine-covers.html

Hollywood Reporter: "Aniston Top-Selling Cover Face, Forbes Says" (2007)

Aniston top-selling cover face, Forbes says

People can't get enough of Jennifer Aniston. Neither can Us Weekly, Star or other popular celebrity magazines.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Women's Wear Daily (WWD "Beyoncé Tops Newsstand Sales" (2013)

Beyoncé, Dead Celebrities Top Newsstand Sales

Numbers from the first half show that sex sells, three celebrities are better than one and Beyoncé trumps everyone, even the First Lady of the United States.

wwd.com

It's been proven for decades now, Models were replaced by actors and actresses because they could sell. This has been proven across other published titles beyond Vogue, like Cosmopolitan, and even titles like UsWeekly & People- who specialize in celebrity content. Whether you have disdain for celeb covers or not does not change the fact that numbers are proof of the sales increases as has been widely published.

This cover with TC is just bad taste and a failed attempt at creativity, that is clear.

 

[Kimy Jo]

Wait. You mean, pamphlet?

Yes, sorry

 

[MModa]

This is simply not true. Print was challenged as the public grew tired of seeing Supermodels dominating, celebrities actually helped revive ad sales and recapture public interest at a time, it's been well documented. Quick research can debunk this:

New York Times: "Trading on Hollywood Magic; Celebrities Push Models Off Women's Magazine Covers" (1999)

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/30/business/trading-on-hollywood-magic-celebrities-push-models-off-women-s-magazine-covers.html

Hollywood Reporter: "Aniston Top-Selling Cover Face, Forbes Says" (2007)

Aniston top-selling cover face, Forbes says

People can't get enough of Jennifer Aniston. Neither can Us Weekly, Star or other popular celebrity magazines.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Women's Wear Daily (WWD "Beyoncé Tops Newsstand Sales" (2013)

Beyoncé, Dead Celebrities Top Newsstand Sales

Numbers from the first half show that sex sells, three celebrities are better than one and Beyoncé trumps everyone, even the First Lady of the United States.

wwd.com

It's been proven for decades now, Models were replaced by actors and actresses because they could sell. This has been proven across other published titles beyond Vogue, like Cosmopolitan, and even titles like UsWeekly & People- who specialize in celebrity content. Whether you have disdain for celeb covers or not does not change the fact that numbers are proof of the sales increases as has been widely published.

This cover with TC is just bad taste and a failed attempt at creativity, that is clear.

This is 100% true. Once Wintour put actresses on US Vogue, sales were much higher and the celebrity cover obsession started.

 

[AFWQ]

This cover is another bought cover to promote a movie... it is what Vogue US has became in recent years. It sells their covers for studios to promote movies.

But it does make me wonder how, a magazine that has been shaped like this for past years can became a collectors item. (I think that is new aim for magazine)

There's a specific target audience, and mostly people who are in this forum would gladly buy these magazines every month, but it needs to be desired in order to be consumed. And current state of it it doesn't spark desire or interest.

A cover like this is another example. In 24h or so, amount of criticism I have seen towards cover has been to point of being ridiculouslized. It doesn't give vogue or Conde nast a good name, even less to Anna's last work or what could come with Chloe.

I don't know... but I am not optimistic of Vogue's future.

And all these changes that have been happening in Conde Nast, it makes me even less optimistic showing how is current shape of other Vogue titles.

 

[AFWQ]

Also:

Cover background is from Hubble Telescope, by NASA. And editorial is shoot in a art installation by Michael Heizer in Nevada.

 

[tigerrouge]

A cover like this is another example. In 24h or so, amount of criticism I have seen towards cover has been to point of being ridiculouslized. It doesn't give vogue or Conde nast a good name, even less to Anna's last work or what could come with Chloe.

Yes, on tfs, it's nothing new for us to be critical - but it's something else when the comments on social media are so negative, it's very different from the usual tsunami of bland praise from bot accounts.

 

[Linh Bui]

God bless whoever looked at this and went: That's the cover to end the year

 

[eugenius]

I mean, if he's auditioning for season 2 of "Boots" w/ that buzzcut, good for him.

But other than that, my eye just had to travel to that untied shoelace, and that pisses me more than anything else about this image.

 

[alwaysademo]

This is 100% true. Once Wintour put actresses on US Vogue, sales were much higher and the celebrity cover obsession started.

But at what cost?

This is simply not true. Print was challenged as the public grew tired of seeing Supermodels dominating, celebrities actually helped revive ad sales and recapture public interest at a time, it's been well documented. Quick research can debunk this:

New York Times: "Trading on Hollywood Magic; Celebrities Push Models Off Women's Magazine Covers" (1999)

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/30/business/trading-on-hollywood-magic-celebrities-push-models-off-women-s-magazine-covers.html

Hollywood Reporter: "Aniston Top-Selling Cover Face, Forbes Says" (2007)

Aniston top-selling cover face, Forbes says

People can't get enough of Jennifer Aniston. Neither can Us Weekly, Star or other popular celebrity magazines.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Women's Wear Daily (WWD "Beyoncé Tops Newsstand Sales" (2013)

Beyoncé, Dead Celebrities Top Newsstand Sales

Numbers from the first half show that sex sells, three celebrities are better than one and Beyoncé trumps everyone, even the First Lady of the United States.

wwd.com

It's been proven for decades now, Models were replaced by actors and actresses because they could sell. This has been proven across other published titles beyond Vogue, like Cosmopolitan, and even titles like UsWeekly & People- who specialize in celebrity content. Whether you have disdain for celeb covers or not does not change the fact that numbers are proof of the sales increases as has been widely published.

This cover with TC is just bad taste and a failed attempt at creativity, that is clear.

Is it necessary to cite the nytimes to debunk something that's obviously true?
Didn't click on any of the links but Hollywood reporter would report on sth that's flattering to Hollywood. Forbes... there's not a pinch of chic in that lane. If you squint, you'll see the actual WWD URL says: the-quick-and-the-dead.
Your last 2 paragraphs in sum says: bad taste sells.
We know that already.

 

[dieinmytabis]

Vogue is not about fashion anymore. Anna does not care for the magazine's artistic or quality-value because they want money, they want the magazine to do good, and that's unfortunately the only thing that matters. They don't seem to understand that the audience is transferring on to a different age group, and that new age group would buy into Vogue... if the covers were good. The new generation doesn't even buy print. If you make something good, it would push them to buy it.

The general public knows who Alex Consani and Anok Yai are, why not use them? Vogue isn't the home of all things fashion now. We can only wait and see what Chloe does, which I'm not expecting anything

 

[jeremydante]

Is it necessary to cite the nytimes to debunk something that's obviously true?

Concisely, yes- it is necessary to cite credible sources in discussion of facts and documented history. Much like the TFS forum rules require, sources are always necessary. Also, I included the link for it's publishing date of 1999, this is a marker of foresight, as The New York Times has always been a pioneer of presenting facts and observations for culture ahead of others.

You can say this is obviously true, by today's standard. My sharing of facts was in direct response to @Patricio, so as to back things up and not just present opinion with no documentation. Which we often see throughout the forum with shared opinions.

 

[tigerrouge]

Advertisers have always chased the younger generation of each era, for reasons, but the fact remains that the generation(s) above them are likely the ones with the serious accumulation of wealth and the spending power to match their position in life.

When I was an impressionable teenager, I had NO money to spend on any of the things I saw. That's not the case now, but nobody seems to want me to buy their stuff, even though I could be easily persuaded to.