US Vogue January 2005 : Jennifer Lopez by Mario Testino

From the editorial:
jlo0027gz.jpg


00051tl.jpg


00041uh.jpg


00066rw.jpg


00030lx.jpg


00077hz.jpg
 
there are a couple from the editorial that are nice. Other than that, BLAH. And the cover oh my goodness. they like made her look so weird. In some of the photos I get the sense that she looks like an upstart latina from the 1950's. So weird.
 
vogue

saw vogue. julia is just the best.

also liked trentini, stam and lisa in a few pics
 
I find all of the US Vogue covers really dull.

I do like the third black & white picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love that dress she is wearing in the tennis shot. So cute.

And those red open toed slingbacks *sigh* simply adorable!

I don't really like the other ensembles she is wearing, especially the blue sweater/pants look. It doesn't fit her well at all.
 
Oh whatever it's perfectly fine. I think some of you have too high expectations for American Vogue. J.Lo looks good and it's nice to see her in clothes that she normally wouldn't wear.

As for the comment about "why does she look so happy"? That's one of the most important signatures of American Vogue--it's bright, happy, sunny, sweet. If you want sullen junkies in a rundown apartment setting, go to selfservice or French Vogue. But American Vogue is about beaming happiness, which I think is entirely appropriate for a January cover.

Yes, J.Lo may be tacky, but I'm sure this cover will be yet another blockbuster seller on the newsstands. Anna Wintour knows how to sell a magazine. And you can't argue with that.
 
metal-on-metal said:
Anna Wintour knows how to sell a magazine. And you can't argue with that.
yes, but anna wintour has been the reason jennifer lopez hasn't been on the cover. i wonder will anna even write an editor's letter for december. she should have just put paris hilton on the cover. naked. that would have sold magazines, too.
 
True, Anna didn't want her for the longest time. And it is strange to have J.Lo at a time when the buzz surrounding her isn't exactly deafening. But whatever. It's a beautiful woman, in a beautiful setting, in beautiful clothing. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure it's boring, predictable, contrived and totally commercial, but it's what I expect of Vogue.

I feel like people are still somehow expecting American Vogue to run a black and white shot of Hannelore in Hussein Chalayan on the cover. It's not going to happen, people! American Vogue will always be about a certain look. So you can expect the same designers (YSL, Gucci, Prada, Ralph, Calvin) on the same starlets (Nicole, SJP, Renee, Gywneth) for a long time to come.
 
Just because US Vogue has been crap for a long time doesn't mean that we shouldn't objectively critique it every month. I can still be continually disappointed in my hope that my displeasure with it will eventually carry over into changes.
 
metal-on-metal said:
So you can expect the same designers (YSL, Gucci, Prada, Ralph, Calvin) on the same starlets (Nicole, SJP, Renee, Gywneth) for a long time to come.
bleak prospects, indeed!! :cry:
 
for the most part, i love it...i love the blue narciso dress, the black and white with the pearls, and the blue marc jacobs w/red shoes. those are all very elegant. i would have liked to see one with her hair down, because she's got beautiful hair, but oh well.
 
metal-on-metal said:
I feel like people are still somehow expecting American Vogue to run a black and white shot of Hannelore in Hussein Chalayan on the cover. It's not going to happen, people! American Vogue will always be about a certain look. So you can expect the same designers (YSL, Gucci, Prada, Ralph, Calvin) on the same starlets (Nicole, SJP, Renee, Gywneth) for a long time to come.
i'm just disappointed at a time where we have julia roberts, catherine zeta jones, natalie portman, tea leoni, kate beckinsdale, kate winslet, rosario dawson, gwen stefani ALL in hit movies right now, we didn't need a jlo cover right now. i mean i think that a jlo cover should come when she does a good movie again. maybe vogue embracing her as a rebounded star. not moments after that shall we dance joke. i mean a julia roberts cover could have been amazing. or a desperate housewives cover. and there are so many female artists on the music charts right now...this just looks random.
 
mikeijames said:
i'm just disappointed at a time where we have julia roberts, catherine zeta jones, natalie portman, tea leoni, kate beckinsdale, kate winslet, rosario dawson, gwen stefani ALL in hit movies right now, we didn't need a jlo cover right now. i mean i think that a jlo cover should come when she does a good movie again. maybe vogue embracing her as a rebounded star. not moments after that shall we dance joke. i mean a julia roberts cover could have been amazing. or a desperate housewives cover. and there are so many female artists on the music charts right now...this just looks random.
and why would we need gwen stefani on the cover again??
i hated this year's cover with her, the worst ever!!! :yuk:
 
I totally agree that the J.Lo choice seems random. But you know there has been so much controversy and whispering over her cover for the longest time. She's been snubbed by Wintour again and again. January issues aren't very important, they are thin and generally don't sell too well. Which I think enables magazines to experiment a little bit in that month. Maybe Anna figured that if J.Lo has to have a cover, she might as well get it over with and do it in January if possible.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,476
Messages
15,186,347
Members
86,347
Latest member
zyxsu
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->