US Vogue July 2016 : Amy Schumer by Annie Leibovitz

[KateTheGreatest]

I don't care about Amy or the cover.

Where is kroqjock with his review? That's always the fun part of Vogue US thread.

 

[justaguy]

Typical Annie Leibovitz editorial. The cover isn't bad, but would have been nice seeing Amy laugh or at least smile. She is after all a comedienne, right?

 

[dfl-001]

TFS members are completely on the game!
Who called this cover months ago?!

At first look I admit;
I hated Leibovitz, I hated Wintour, I hated Vogue, and I hated Conde' Nast.
But letting this settle, it doesn't offend me so much.
The colors remind me of all those TV programs that rerun their Christmas shows in July.
If this were the December cover, it would have been much better.
Vogue styling with the 'natural' look is fine with me.
However, I've said before, the 'natural' look has to be enhanced.
Meaning - there is no excuse for those dark circles under the eyes.
It detracts from what could have been a decent portrait.

 

[fluxxx]

Cannot stand her and now I wish it was Blake Lively instead of her.

 

[Bertrando3]

That video was sooooo funny OMG I loved it !!! The editorial is ok-ish but I mean COME ON Leibovitz should retire, the retouching and angles are really bad, in terms of photography this is really bad.

The cover now? It´s simply the worst angle EVER in covers history. ANNA weren´t there really other photos to choose from???

 

[whitewine82]

You must be kidding... I want to pretend that I hadn't seen it, but I can't. WTF is going on with Anna? This US Vogue crisis went too far.

 

[whitewine82]

i wish the editorial had the fun and the energy that was in the video...

Exactly! They could done something like the march cover that was fun and fashion.

 

[VogueGirl8910]

Horrerous cover, she's not a model. Her spread looks like a shoot of Rolling Stone.

 

[ThatGuyPaul]

Horrerous cover, she's not a model. Her spread looks like a shoot of Rolling Stone.

Never would've guessed.

_

US Vogue is inoffensive. Every month. Take away the photographer name, put it on a different magazine masthead and boom... you'd all be raving about it!

 

[Yohji]

The pose is actually really great, but they ruined it by photoshopping her face beyond recognition.

 

[littlekiki]

That's exactly what her face looks like, eyebags included.

And I'm not complaining.

 

[HeatherAnne]

Wintour and her obsession with blonde celebrities continues, zZZZzz, hang it up already.

 

[blueorchid]

I'm puzzled by the people who are acting like the photo is "unflattering" to her face... that's actually how her face looks... Are they supposed to photoshop defined cheekbones on her or something?

time

 

[valliaddict]

A face only a mother could love.

This comment is so unnecessary & mean spirited, but that pretty much sums up what TFS has become over the past few years.

The cover is not good. No need to call her or anyone else ugly.

 

[MON]

My goodness, the personal attacks are outrageous. These kind of comments aren't constructive; they're downright mean. She's beautiful in her own right and couldn't care less about our personal "standards" of beauty.

Call her whatever, but at the end of the day, she has a Vogue cover and we don't.

To be honest, we aren't appreciating the bigger picture - that Vogue has placed 2 curvy cover stars in less than 4 months!

 

[Vinciano]

This comment is so unnecessary & mean spirited, but that pretty much sums up what TFS has become over the past few years.

The cover is not good. No need to call her or anyone else ugly.

Absolutely all of this!

 

[MulletProof]

I don't understand the shock about people judging her looks. It's one thing to be cruel, but it's also not the cover of Time, Reader's Digest or Country Home. It's a magazine about aesthetics, physical beauty as a lifestyle, and she's choosing to be on the cover. It's stupid PR to decline a Vogue cover, but also to think you might just jump from your career as a scientist, comedian, politician or whatnot to the interview inside without playing the game and exposing yourself to what that game invites, which is criticism based on appearance, surface, that's their foundation and readership, and it's what most people are here for, not exactly for how much models know about electromagnetic radiation. If she's built a career out of making a parody of how nonsense and irrelevant beauty standards in the show business are, great, but a bit of a contradiction to then play it as a serious game and in its most traditional, strict and cliché form (1940s Hollywood beauty aesthetic repeatedly) and expect different results just because you *are* aware that it is nonsense. Most people are aware, some just explore the many variations of aesthetics, not just desperately trying to prove compliance to conventional prettiness.

Frankly I think this is the best she's ever looked and.. also the best she can look . Saying this is her wrong angle.. uh, there's just no other angle?. It's a bit like hoping that Jay Leno photographed from the left corner on the floor as he's looking to the sky might just pass as Tom Sturridge. He won't.

 

[CATO]

who is she? unknown girl for me,
she looks so random and trivial,
the cover looks like a "joke fake cover"
in the cover-challange thread - the creative guys there create muuuuuch more better covers indeed

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Amy is probably the least photogenic woman ever, why she hogs fashion magazines is beyond me. Plus not everyone is enamoured of her type of comedy, magazines make it sound like there is some sort of consensus and she has to be on fashion covers even though she's clearly not known for her looks or any sort of fashion sense.

 

[penny609]

I can't believe I'm actually leaving a comment on a US Vogue thread right now... I don't recall the last time I did this (if it ever happened once) or the last issue that was able to thrill me a single bit. Personally I don't know who she is (well, I got the idea, more or less) so she's like another random unknown celeb landing a Vogue cover to me. I can understand one may consider her as unattractive or annoying or whatever, a bit less the free rude comments but what really strikes me, and not in a good way is how we end up with another blonde in red on a green background. Feels like I've seen this a million times, on Conde Nast covers in general and on Vogue US in particular. If the point of that cover was to make something different (obviously, somehow), the first aspect they should try to change is the aesthetics, the style (and this can be achieved without losing the magazine's spirit). Here it just looks like an unfortunate parody reminding me of those movies aiming to be serious but you can't stop laughing while watching them.