Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by vogue28, Apr 20, 2021.
Let Lady Di rest in peace!
This feels very inappropriate right after Prince Philip’s passing.
I'm not surprised it's got 'The Dynasty Issue' written at the top - I've said this before, it's all been turned into a one-dimensional soap opera, with a storyline about feuding brothers living on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and the virtuous wife and the villainess, and all the other characters playing their various roles.
And like all soap operas, sometimes you just need to take a break from hearing about it, in order to get on with your own life.
I might actually buy this, but only for the profiles of Lourdes Leon, and Armie Hammer.
This "dynasty" drivel, they can keep.
How original...very distasteful. What are the Newhouses doing? Surely they can see the train wreck Condé Nast has become.
Just know this will be a good write up, no doubt it will probably do well at the magazine stands as people love drama. I don’t think it’s insensitive to Philip personally, they are public figures and now more than ever there will be interest
I can only think of two other people I care to hear about less than these two guys.
I'm sorry but what's the point of this cover? Is Vanity Fair trying to become the new People Magazine or something?
I do like the picture, but it feels wrong on multiple levels to have this on the cover now. I'm more interested in the Lourdes Leon profile, would have loved to see her on the cover.
Tasteless, no better than the gutter press (Daily Mail, The Sun). In fact, I'm sure the tabloids have a more legitimate connection to the palace than Vanity Fair.
So wrong to drag Prince William into this. And when will they let this poor woman rest in peace?
Ok, so you're going to use a vintage shot for the cover, but why one with such poor quality? Because it's not as popular? The cover would probably have better if it were one of the famous pics that we all know.
The only acceptable use of a Princess Diana archive is when a magazine will pay tribute to her. The audacity to use an old image of her (with her sons at that) for an issue dedicated to speculate on William and Harry's "fraught relationship". Also, why this particular image? There are tons of fairly recent photos of William and Harry and yet they chose this one.
They didn't even bother to put Princess Diana's name on the cover or in the caption. Clearly they're using her as bait. Readers will think the issue is about the late Princess and buy it, only to find out that it's a puff piece by an outsider.
They didn't even bother to include a caveat that the issue was finalized and put to press months prior to the death of His Royal Highness.
Very distasteful and crass.
At least when Graydon Carter did his 'dead celebrity' covers, he usually chose a decent shot of them, one that didn't look out of place on the front of a magazine.
Right? This isn't any different from the unauthorised features we've seen Tatler do about Kate and Meghan. And to be honest, the coverline reads exactly like something you'll see on UK tabloids. So I wonder if those who always blanket 'the British press' for their obsession with all things Harry and Megan, will they keep the same energy for VF and call them out as well for their tacky, sensationalist reporting?
They should have had a Team Harry and a Team William cover and tracked how many each sold. If you're going to go tabloid, go HAM or go home.
It comes off a bit inappropiate given these recent times, I must agree on that.
i would have loved to see armie on the cover instead.
Comes with a watches supplement:
Gillian Anderson by Luis Monteiro
Styling: Hannah Teare
Vanity Fair Digital Edition
So Gillian has been robbed?
Got my subscription copy today, I was wondering why that supplement cover shot of Gillian looked so weird before I realised she's standing in front of a sheet. If you've ever seen one of these Watch supplements, you'll know how uninteresting they are, and Gillian's feature is essentially a three-page advertorial for Bulgari.
And for anyone who thinks that Lourdes Leon was cheated of a cover... her three-page feature in the main issue sees her looking like a Kardashian who wants to be a rapper.
The William & Harry article is more of a puff piece about the 'superstar qualities' of Meghan Markle, which opens with her publicist suggesting to her that she "could be the next Megan Fox". Well, this article might be saying the British royal family are rubbish, but on the other hand, Vanity Fair seems to think they'll sell copies of their magazine if they put people from the royal family on the front, so whatever suits their purposes.
As an aside, I'm sure people in the US have no idea there are people from African backgrounds who have chosen to marry into the British aristocracy, but you don't hear much about them, because they just get on with their lives (Emma Weymouth is one, although her father is described as a Nigerian oil billionaire, so living at Longleat is probably a step down for her).
The Armie Hammer article is quite lengthy, and is followed by a short portfolio of rather beautiful pictures of palatial houses ruined by the blast in Beirut. There's an interview with director Barry Jenkins, and the obligatory Trump article, plus a look at Chanel's ateliers, and excerpts from a political thriller by Stacey Abrams, and from Andrew McCarthy's Hollywood memoir 'Brat: An 80s Story'. The Sharon Stone feature is just the Q&A page at the back of the issue.
That's a lot of written content for such a slim issue, so I feel like I'm getting decent value from it.