Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by jorgepalomo, May 3, 2019.
Why produce meh content when you have Sharon Stone? Are they mad?
Love Sharon! The first cover is stunning. 61 never looked so good.
The second cover is fantastic
Really not a fan of the second cover (not even for a standard picture) but the first one is amazing.
I might buy this one. I bought the previous issue (the Africa one) and found the photography content to be quite acceptable. The theme sure helped. I might have to start looking past the fact that their written content is lacking (and mostly disconnected from the theme) and just buy it for "the pretty pictures".
Another unexpected cover subject that I fully get behind. This seems to be a recurring theme for magazines this month. Love the first cover and the second one isn’t necessary. I know they’re trying to remind us of her association with “Basic Instinct”, but if that’s the case, they should’ve gone all the way by recreating the scene for the cover.
Wow, unexpected choice, and while I really like Sharon a lot (I'm probably the only person in the world who thinks Basic Instinct 2 is better than the original), the first cover was enough. My only gripe is the unnecessary photoshop. This could have been such a more powerful shot if her actual face with wrinkles showed on the water cover.
I'm sure Sharon and Madonna never thought they'd be booking Vogue covers in their 60s. And when you think of it, Vogue was never really all over them even during the height of their popularity.
^ Um, not true, they both had plenty of Vogue coverage during their heyday.
The first cover is great, you almost forget how awful that second cover is!
Interesting that both Vogue Portugal and Vogue UK went for a black and white shot of an older woman lying in water for their covers.
I have a hard time recognising Sharon Stone in the second cover. She looks like a mash up of Kylie Bax and Connie Nielsen.
I hate the first cover is so cliche. I love the second cover.
And Sharon Stone with her legs wide open is not a cliche?!?
Branislav Simoncik already shared he was shooting with her. I think I post on cover rumors.
This is first cover for the magazine with Lighthouse where they use a celebrity. So we have a turn here. Could be sales? Branislav influence on it? The group gives a lot of liberty to him.
Cristina, the magazine is really strong in this new issue came out yesterday. Has an Interview with Cindy Crawford and Claudia Raia... Both were in Portugal recently. So I don't think Vogue Portugal won't sell as well.
My thoughts exactly.
I find both covers so vulgar. Very cliché. Plus title of the issue, please...
And Sharon Stone face on the second... It clearly shows the choice was because of her body position and not because she looks good.
And not the best photos Branislav can create.
Also looking at them, makes me question their marketing strategy of them since their GQ Portugal covers were these ones. The actress, Oceana Basilico who is considered of the sexiest woman in Portugal is covered in hair.
I love the cover in the water. Not sure why but I've always liked her for whatever reason.
Yes but it is less corney
Um, admittedly I'm wrong about Madonna because she booked a lot between the late 80s and early 90s, but Sharon have only 6 covers, this being her 7th? That doesnt quite match her career and following. And I didn't meant it as an insult!
Sharon Stone never had a following. Her career defining role was in Basic Instinct, not Casino, which she actually won an Oscar for. Outside of those two films, almost everything else has been forgettable. She's never had the career and following of Julia Roberts, or Sandra Bullock. If this is her seventh Vogue cover, I'm actually impressed, tbh.
She never won a oscar, she was nomineted for casinp
Yes! You're right. I elevated her by mistake.
But what about The Muse!?! Lol. To be fair Dior hired her for their beauty line, a contract which would last quite a few years. She may not have had the film career the two you've mentioned, but I reckon she was still as recognisable and visible as them.