« Donna Karan: Hello Jeans, Good-Bye Fur

Fashion Is Fun Jan 15, 2009 @ 1:14pm

Vogue’s April Cover: Discuss!

by Britt Aboutaleb

When we posted the first images of Blake Lively’s February Vogue cover, the discussion took a quick turn from does she or doesn’t she look amazing to who’s landed April’s cover.

Thanks to a few readers and some sneaky emails / texts, we think we have the answer. But since it isn’t nearly as fun to just tell you, let’s play a game. The clues:

1. “If you think this one is bad get ready. Vogue is now turning into TV Guide, April’s cover is even less deserved.”

2. “A cheesy television actress who came from a teen show - with bad commercial movies.”

3. She’s a former WB star.

4. The actress is “shaplier” than Katie Holmes, (which makes her prime for April’s Shape Issue) but shares the same initials.

Think you know the answer? Click to find out ours:

Katherine Heigl is both shapely, formerly of the WB (Roswell), currently on TV (Grey’s Anatomy), guilty of terrible commercial movies (27 Dresses), shares Katie Holmes’s initials and, when it comes to fashion, is less qualified for a Vogue cover than even Blake Lively.

Also, her new movie hits theatres April 3rd which makes a mid-March Vogue cover awfully appropriate.

Vogue’s official-spokesperson response? “We confirm the cover closer to the on-sale date.”

« Donna Karan: Hello Jeans, Good-Bye Fur

Fashionista Main

posted by rickeyg303

Jan 15, 2009 1:18PM

totally knew it was katherine heigel.

posted by LauraMilli

Jan 15, 2009 1:19PM

I posted about this yesterday and came up with Amy Adams. http://fashionsavedmylife.com/2009/01/15/is-amy-adams-vogues-next-cover-girl/

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 1:20PM

Um just a thought but if you really want to make it a guessing game, maybe you shouldn't tag the post with the answer...

posted by LauraMilli

Jan 15, 2009 1:22PM

But seems like you have the April cover done.

posted by AmandaMichele

Jan 15, 2009 1:23PM

I was thinking of Katie Holmes c of the initials but she was never on TV. Sad because she is cute, and from a famous family, and well dressed and makes sense on a Vogue cover. Heigel seems like such an underwhelming choice.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 1:24PM

i think far too many people make a big deal about vogue covers. even though they say us vogue has become irrelevant due to its commercialization and pandering to middle america, they weigh which actress is deserving or not deserving of the cover with the fervor geeks use to debate which actor should play whom in watchmen. the vitriol that was directed at blake lively was, at times, sickening to read.

i think katherine heigl is beautiful and i wouldn't mind seeing how they style her. perhaps my expectations have been lowered long ago, but i'm merely happy to see fresh, new faces on vogue covers. it's a whole hell of a lot better than seeing angelina, renee, jennifer, sienna, gwyneth, and keira again and again and again and again.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 1:40PM

Guest #6, you forgot Drew Barrymore!

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 1:45PM

guest 6, i know what you mean, but i think people make a big deal because of how important vogue is during your childhood. like, depending on how you're brought up, you can easily grow up thinking of vogue as the epitome of fashion, so when people who aren't known for their style at all are put on the cover, it can be really annoying, and not just because you're already thinking to yourself "i'm not reading that interview" but because you feel like an icon is resting on its laurels, which is exactly what icons shouldn't do.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 2:02PM

Gemma would be appropriate for a US Vogue cover. Due to her movies, and her 'comeback' she's the model with the mostest. Can we please, just ONCE, skip the actresses, and put a model?

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 2:03PM

Let's just all switch to British/Parisian/Indian/Australian etc. Vogue

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 2:16PM

guest number 5, katie holmes was on tv... remember: joey potter on dawson's creek which was on the WB.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 2:28PM

Oh man Katherine Heigel?WTF!!!But GA is totally lame and isnt as good as it used to be, but why on earth would they put HER on the cover of Vogue?God damitt Anna, at least Lively is on the hottest TV Show right now, that is all about fashion, and looks beautiful.

But i do have to say, that i give Wintour props for bringing in new people, it seems the covers will be less preditcatble in 2009, i say bring it!

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 4:05PM

i say bring back some models! nobody outside of ny & la care about them anymore!

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 4:17PM

Um no, that is stupid!!Nobody in this celeb obsessed culture cares about models, specially with todays bland "we all look the same & dont have personality" (check Prada)!And they dont sell in American market, is that seriously so hard to comprehend?All you need to do is TRY!
Why would Wintour and Nast use them when they dont sell?STUPID!!GET OVER IT!!!

And its not like we are living in times when the only fashion magazine is Vogue, go and buy the ones that use models, then (Vogue Italia, Vogue Paris even UK,German the option a plenty)!This argument is sooo getting old and tired!At least they seem to be giving us new cover subjects this year.

posted by nogobelieve

Jan 15, 2009 5:21PM

I personally love Katherine Heigl, loved Grey's Anatomy (pre Izzie and George hookup)and I do understand why actresses and other celebrities have taken over magazine covers. With that said, it would be nice to see models on the cover again. I've lived in Florida and Nigeria my whole life and I would still buy Vogue even if it was Hilary Rhoda instead of Jennifer Aniston striking a pose.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 5:36PM

Guest # 10 I agree but i wish we could get them at the American Vogue price

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 6:25PM

Guest # 6, I totally agree with you, it's refreshing to see new faces instead of the ones everybody knows, with stories most people are familiar with.

Models on the cover don't sell like they used to, because let's face it, the times of the big super models are over.

I love Blake's cover, the photoshoot is beautiful and I will certainly buy this issue.

posted by Modupe

Jan 15, 2009 6:39PM

wow, i just blogged about this
http://darkchocolatecouture.blogspot.com/2009/01/vogue-into-new-year-little-reflection.html

i really wish they'd consider models on the covers again but like guest17 said, it doesn't sell like they used to...

also, i loved blake's issue

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 6:49PM

Guest #14 I have to agree with you. I would love to see more models on the cover, but the models these days look so much alike it would be hard for people to distinguish one from another.

Celebs also provide stories. Very few models have different stories that will keep readers interested.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 6:56PM

Keira Knightley is on every freaking cover of Vogue. It's frustrating. Guest 19, you said that celebrities provide stories, but what about the days when only models were on the covers? What did they do then to keep readers interested? I would love love love to finally have a model on US Vogue.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 7:16PM

Perhaps the target market for Vogue is not people who read this blog and the people who are complaining. I am sure everyone over at Vogue and Conde Nast is smart enough to know who they are targeting their publication towards.

Perhaps they have determined that the people they will lose from not putting a model on the cover is less than the people they will lose because of insipid actresses. Seriously how long ago did Vogue make the switch from models to actresses? I'm thinking what more than a decade.

Bitching and moaning is not going to change anything. The days of only models or mostly models on American publications is over. Move on.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 7:21PM

celebrities provide no stories ,just fluff pieces and lies provided by thier publicists, or ones the magazines clearly make up. Before celebs magazines sold because they provided fashion direction which many women still want and dont get anymore. if you or any americans knew the real everyday lives of all of these so called celebrities from angelina, nicole on down to the dumbed down gossip girls, you would all be sick and offended. as for poster 14 if you are fine worshiping mediocrity......then you must not have been around when magazines were good and sold because they were good and not all trying to be instyle. Or if you think junkie homewreckers, multiple divorcees, insecure buliumics or people who marry for movie roles are more likely to make you want to look good or buy beautiful things than a beautiful woman in a beautiful dress fine. But i dont believe you for a second.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 7:49PM

I agree with 21. Everyone move on about the model on the cover thing. Its not gonna happen! Quit complaining about it on here, we all feel the same way, but its a lost battle at this point.

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 11:11PM

Katherine Heigel is beautiful
if you haven't noticed Vogue puts more than just fashion in the mag.
And I think she deserves to be on the cover!

posted by guest

Jan 15, 2009 11:25PM

Last year's model on the April cover did not go over well why try again. It didn't sell on the newstands and pissed a ton of people off. Why would they do that again? Vogue is big business for Conde Nast they are not going to do things that are proven unprofitable and right now models aren't selling magazines.

I want to see a Kate Winslet cover this year. She seems like someone that could give an intelligent and meaningful interview. I'm sorry but Blake comes off sounding like a moron bitching about being teased in second grade because of her strange clothes. I don't want to read that crap.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 4:30AM

Why is Heigl's less deserved? Blake Lively is a nobody in comparison to her. I really am tired of the bashing of Heigl who is not only beautiful but a very talented actress and a smart woman too. She constantly wins all the best dressed awards on the red carpet, has won an Emmy, two Golden Globe nominations and is an A list name. Perfect cover material as far as I am concerned.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 6:57AM

I'm from the UK and I never feel the urge to buy US Vogue because it just looks like a taboid mag. Do I care how actresses are styled? No. Do I care if Jen think what Angie did was "uncool"? No. I just want to see the CLOTHES on nameless and somewhat more famous models!

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 7:52AM

its true 27 you dont care about jen and most americans dont either we just have lazy editors. people buy magazines for content not covers and coverlines actually have more to do with the sales than the subject which is the reason that vogue looks like a cereal box these days. And last aprils cover did poorly cause it was a bad cover and no woman who reads vogue knows who that basketball player even was.

posted by The Habit

Jan 16, 2009 9:45AM

Jessica Biel? Definitely works for the shape issue.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 10:40AM

it's katherine heigl, no doubt. formerly on the wb's teen alien show, roswell.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 10:45AM

22#

Your comment is a fantastic example of ingorance and hypocrisy.Everything you wrote about celebrities can be applied for models; bulimics?Are you fucking kidding me?!!!Lets not even go there, shall we!!!

The fact is famous women sell, because the readers recognize them, and identify with their life stories, like i said in USA that sells.So who are you to proclaim anything as mediocre?What gives?I have been around when models ruled the covers at US Vogue, and i can tell you from personal expirience that they were bigger monsters than any of celebs i have worked or interacted these days.

Do i want models?Hell yeah,but not because like you, i think they bring so much more or are better, and more worthy than celebs, but because its a nice change, do i expect US Vogue to start featuring them on their cover?No, because not even Kate Moss last year faired well with the American public (the issue was second worst seller).As long as celebs sell magazines they will be on the covers of Vogue, its a buisness.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 11:06AM

#31 is dead on. Especially in a tanking economy, the powers that be at Conde Nast would be idiots to sacrifice sales for an outmoded ideal of what a cover girl is. If Vogue truly does set the standard for American fashion magazines, then it looks like actresses as cover models are here to stay an no amount of whining will change that. If, on the other hand, U.S. Vogue is as passe and stagnant as many of you claim it to be, then what does it matter who's on their cover? Find a new bible if it's really that offensive to you.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 11:07AM

I have a thought about this whole annoying debate. Vogue is in the business of selling magazines. They put celebrities on the cover and have a circulation in the millions in the US. Vogue Paris puts models on it's cover 9 months out of the 10 month circulation period yet has a circulation of what 100,000+ in it's home country. If you adjusted the populations of both countries I wonder if Paris Vogue would have a circulation in France even comparable to that of Vogue in the US? I'm going to guess probably not. Models don't sell magazines. No one cares about them. If anything can be blamed for magazines falling circulation is the internet.

Christ if Vogue really wanted to do something crazy effing put a white/black/magenta cover on each issue and stop using people. .

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 7:01PM

They're using TV stars because they are more mass market, people see them in larger numbers. The movie stars they choose aren't selling...

I would guess January Jones will get a cover eventually, she already did Town & country recently and just had her first big Vanity Fair feature. Mad Men comes back in summer and she has a comedy coming out from the guy that did Love Actually.

posted by guest

Jan 16, 2009 10:35PM

I think Kathrine Heigl deserves to be on Vogue more than Blake Lively.she is much more prettier and has a better career(at least she has had some hits on the big screen) not like that mole chick Blake Lively.by the way,I don't understand why the Gossip Girls:Blake Lively and Taylor Momsem(did I spell her name right?)get much more attention when it comes to fashion than Leighton Meester.I think she's the only one from Gossip Girl who is beautiful and gorgeous(I personally love her style)enough to appear on fashion magazines and shows...

posted by karenx

Jan 17, 2009 12:14AM

Bahhhh. Katherine Heigl is so boring.

posted by guest

Jan 17, 2009 1:54PM

In my opinion, US Vogue has lost almost all of its "wow" factor or whatever. It just isn't very interesting anymore, from covers to all the fashion stories. The last cover with an actress I absolutely loved was the Marie Antoinette-ish one with Kristen Dunst, obviously styled to promote the Marie antoinette movie, but still, it was gorgeous. As Katherine Heigl goes, I think she's pretty but I mean, she really doesn't dress amazing. And actually, Blake Lively is a breath of fresh air.

Conclusion, Vogue is boring, but it's still selling.

posted by guest

Jan 17, 2009 5:43PM

#26 please stop drinking the Kool-aid.

Heigl on the cover of Vogue? That is the sign of the apocalypse for damn sure. I guess some consider her pretty enough, but imo she is so generic looking. Shapely? I'm sorry big tits with no ass, no hips is considered shapely now?

I'm sure she'll give another of her insipid interviews and lie about how she's so honest and doesn't diet.