Vanity Fair June 2009 : Jessica Simpson by Mario Testino

[kuli_trendy]

the cover is horrible..

 

[Urban Stylin]

1, 3 5 and 6 are vfery nice shotsa..the others are normal to me. otherwise i dont see anything wrong with having her they always choose controversial figures

 

[Libra Skye18]

VF has always been very hit and miss for me yet I think this time it's a HIT. I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Jessica's music anymore (some of her earlier pop work was good in small doses) or her style (which I feel started to venture south after the Newlyweds show went off the air) but I do think there is something endearing about her personality.

I like the cover and most of the pics. Besides with nowadays there being so many celebrities who try to be different aka TRY-HARDS Jessica still remains in the just trying category. I may not be a fan but I don't begrudge her getting a cover especially since its obvious as to why (her causing a stir with Mom Jeans-gate).

Thanks for posting Tarsha.

 

[Urban Stylin]

the cover is actually nice love the colours.....

 

[SusanSuperstar]

oh no, i expected more, the testino pics are so nice. that cover looks cheap and unreal like plastic, ugh

 

[happycanadian]

i admit, i was absolutely floored when i saw the thread title. i thought, "HUH?!?! Jessica Simp ... WHAT?!?!"

but maybe she's gonna have a renaissance. haha. watch some of her old performances on youtube - she actually had a pretty decent voice. very loud and powerful, not much control though. i wouldn't call her a great singer, but more a person blessed with a powerful, clear voice and good pitch.


anyway, back in the day when that show "Newlyweds" was on tv, she really became America's newest sweetheart. it was like Cher back in the day or something. people really took to her. then her divorce and for the past couple years she's been nothing but tabloid fodder.

i have absolutely no idea what she's doing right now that makes her relevant for a magazine cover... probably nothing ... but if this is this issues content - whom would you have preferred get the cover? BERNIE MADOFF?! haha.


as far as covers go - its not the greatest, but it is bright and eye-catching and will probably sell well for them.

 

[Strand]

The cover portrays the interview to be based upon those stupid trousers she wore a few months ago. If wearing a pair on ill-fitting jeans is deemed relevant enough to have you placed on the front cover of VF then I'm stumped. Jessica's a good singer and seems to have a great sense of humour to herself, why does the media assume all we care about is how she looked in a pair of pants. It's a pretty set of pictures and makes a pleasant spread, but I'm always amazed how magazines select their cover stars based upon the most boring of topics.
It's funny, those pants have almost re-invented her. It's insane how the media latches onto things.

 

[liberty33r1b]

no words for this cover....

 

[liberty33r1b]

Who is she?

 

[Flashbang]

Please....no..I've had enough nightmare tonight..
Good luck Jessica, hope your Mom Jeans make them sells well

 

[Erin]

Were they feeling sorry for her?

 

[tigerrouge]

The cover shot reminds me slightly of retro photography of sex symbols. I wish they'd done something better with her hair - being in so much shadow, it looks unwashed.

With the cover line, I know Vanity Fair are hoping to ride the wave of the tabloid interest in her weight, but at the same time, it means we have someone who isn't 0 on a cover.

 

[Tinsley V]

Wow that's amazing ... I'd love to read an entire article of Jessica defending her weight and her 'mom' jeans. Because that's what really interests me in life. Jessica's weight is very relevant and current

 

[b9409]

What the hell is the problem with VF nowadays?

It is always the same formula: some 'hot' chick on the cover - defending her 'lifestyle' choices like anyone cares. I mean, even Gisele was lame, since this is not really a fashion magazine, and she is not a person whose life-story is that interesting and VF-worthy. I thought that was low and in a way, Playboy-esque. At least the photos were gorgeous. And now this??? Isn't there one clever person left over there saying that a woman, who was not even worthy to be a Vogue subject, could qualify as a VF cover girl?
Or is there no one else left in this world to be on the cover?

It is so redundant. I like VF, but they are in such a rut, it is embarrassing. Bernie Madoff again? I mean, get over it already. How many more issues will be devoted to this guy? Why not put him on the cover if he matters that much?

VF's pretentiousness doesn't cut it anymore to excuse these tabloid-inspired covers and subjects. And it is always the same: the 40s hair, the 50s fashion - making women look like their grannies. Enough already. I am sure Ms. Simpson's agents are having an orgasm now though...

 

[tigerrouge]

And next issue will probably be half-filled by Dominic Dunne's hopefully final article about the Phil Spector trial.

 

[thiago:)]

Ugh... Why don't they put Tilda on the cover? I'm sure there'll be so much more interesting portfolio and interview.

 

[vavavinny]

I may TOTALLY disagree about Jessica getting a cover, seeing as you is BEYOND irrelevant. But the editorial shots of her are actually really good. She looks absolutely gorgeous and actually takes good pictures. The cover, on the other hand, is a little too retro for me. It looks like a reproduction of a 1953 cover! Never a good thing, as fashion magazines should always be innovative, even when reverting to the past. And she's looking away, up in the air! If they want to make her seem like a reputable, non-ditzy blonde, portraying her daydreaming is not necessarily the best idea!

 

[LUXXX]

If I were her I would not be happy with the profile they did...yikes! And I thought the one on Zac Efron for GQ was rough...

 

[b9409]

I may TOTALLY disagree about Jessica getting a cover, seeing as you is BEYOND irrelevant. But the editorial shots of her are actually really good. She looks absolutely gorgeous and actually takes good pictures. The cover, on the other hand, is a little too retro for me. It looks like a reproduction of a 1953 cover! Never a good thing, as fashion magazines should always be innovative, even when reverting to the past. And she's looking away, up in the air! If they want to make her seem like a reputable, non-ditzy blonde, portraying her daydreaming is not necessarily the best idea!

If it is only about the photos, then she can hire Testino for a private sitting - he does those as well. She can look at her gorgeous photos all day she wants... in the privacy of her own bedroom. Thanks, but no thanks. This may be the only VF I will not be buying - ever.

I think seeing her face on Bazaar is tacky. Just imagine what I feel about VF.

 

[iamtybone]

Um, what has she even done to deserve a cover? Isn't her music doing badly? I could see a couple years ago but now...