« Next entry

Explain May 6, 2009 @ 12:23pm

Oh, Elle!

by Abby Gardner

Let me just say that I love Elle, lots. It is one of the few American fashion mags that I actually read cover to cover every month.

I’m a huge fan of EIC Robbie Myers and Creative Director Joe Zee.

That said, I’m somewhat perplexed by their June cover girl, Megan Fox. One of these things is not like the other one. Granted, the girl is beautiful and the Alexei Hay shots I’ve seen look equally so.

GQ, sure I get it. But does starring in two Transformers movies plus being smoking hot really warrant an Elle cover? Not so much in this girl’s opinion.

« Next entry

Fashionista Main

posted by MonaVox

May 06, 2009 12:30PM

It's totally a weird choice ... she looks good in and out of clothing, and it's topical/timely considering the upcoming Transformers 2 release ... but her tats are tacky, and she just doesn't really say "fashion" to me.

She does have a modeling background, but I wish she had just stuck with that instead of trying to get into Hollywood. She photographs well, no doubt, but on principle it's a poor choice.

posted by shharvin

May 06, 2009 12:31PM

does anyone else remember her as the bitchy villan in the Olsen's Holiday in the Sun?

posted by darcykins

May 06, 2009 12:32PM

i don't know who she is.
why is there no mention of loving kate in this post?

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 12:44PM

Obviously, she has a good publicist.

But in fact, she has a number of movies coming up including one penned by Diablo Cody, one starring alongside Josh Brolin and John Malkovich, and rumored roles in a movie with Richard Attenborough. Not to mention the upcoming Transformers. That seems like a pretty legitimate platform for a magazine cover.

Furthermore, if you HAVE to put a celebrity on the cover, might as well use one who makes for an attractive editorial.

(P.S. Change the words and the tone of this post reads like a high school girl's diary entry whining about the popular girl being elected to student council....)

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 12:58PM

no more actresses on covers, no matter how gorgeous, bring back the models please :)

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:00PM

Guest number 4, if you change the words and the tone of this post then it would be a different post.

This new Fashionista is already looking so much better.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:07PM

better... "i love elle"?! elle is a pathetic fashion magazine, closer to Cosmo than Muse or Interview

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:07PM

hmmmm...I agree that she is an odd choice AND I like Elle, generally, but I think Elle often picks awful people for the cover. so I don't necessarily think shes hould be singled out amongst the myriad unimpressive Jessicas they often feature. Actually, I think most (American) magazines generally pick awful people for their covers! I guess they have to do what they have to do though, we all know the story!

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:14PM

she looks good in a pornstar way...

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:26PM

I agree, although it's 'the body issue'...that would be the only explanation.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:32PM

Exactly, #8.... This is the magazine that recently featured Jessica Simpson in tight jean cut off shorts and a flannel and last month had Drew Barrymore on the cover, not someone who screams "FASHION" either!

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:50PM

Maybe it's her 22 inch waist that got her the cover.

posted by RashomonRebel

May 06, 2009 1:53PM

lol at #3. Megan is definitely eye candy.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:58PM

Guest #6, I only suggested changing the words, not the tone, the suggestion being that it was the tone that was indicative of a jealous high school girl.

With the exception of a few segments, the new Fashionista is hardly an improvement over the previous. Bring back the old, old Fashionista and stay away from catty, insecure posts.

Maybe if this were a discussion about the relative merits of putting celebrities vs. models on the cover it might be redeemable, but this reads like insecurity.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 1:59PM

She looks like a poor man's Angelina Jolie. Why is she on the cover?

posted by RashomonRebel

May 06, 2009 2:03PM

No #15, Nadya Suleman is THE poor man's Angelina Jolie.

posted by sugarshock

May 06, 2009 2:07PM

she's not the most obvious choice, but, damn, the girl looks hot, so it's fine by me. although I have to agree with guest #5 - please bring back the models!
And, I too love Elle - it's one of my favorite mags (and I read MANY), and I'm not ashamed to admit it. though mostly, I read Elle for its beauty and health coverage, which is by far some of the best in the realm of US magazines.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 2:07PM

I think that hideous Marilyn Monroe tattoo alone should be enough to disqualify her. There are plenty of beautiful women to put on the cover. I'm happy to read a blurb or an article about her in the magazine. But for the cover, I'd prefer someone is an exemplar of something...anything!...whether it is style, strength, intelligence, conviction. Establish that she is a woman of talent and show me that she her success in her career is based on hard work, guts, and smarts. That's a cover story I want to read. Frolicking in pretty clothes is the easy part.

posted by Pretty Young Thing

May 06, 2009 2:10PM

EXACTLY what I was thinking #7. "Elle" is the "Seventeen" for grown-ups.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 2:14PM

Je suis d'accord! Le prochain?..Derek Blasberg. HAHAHA

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 2:17PM

@ Rashomonrebel, no Nadya Suleman is the homeless mans Angelina Jolie.

posted by darcykins

May 06, 2009 2:21PM

Nadya Suleman is the christian soldier with lots of fertile sperm 's Angelina Jolie.

posted by RashomonRebel

May 06, 2009 2:22PM

@#21, touche'

posted by nycshoegal

May 06, 2009 2:22PM

well it is the "body" issue. I never expect much of American magazines' cover selection though. so boring.

posted by RashomonRebel

May 06, 2009 2:27PM

#22 always takes it to another level. Ok, I get, you're the thinking man's fashion girl.

posted by yedinstvo

May 06, 2009 3:08PM

she's pretty and has personality. if one has to go the actress route, i support a fox decision.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 4:06PM

as much as i love elle i don't really put much stock in their cover girl choices

posted by Jean Voltaire

May 06, 2009 4:12PM

June is a pretty low-key issue anyway so it really does not matter who is on it - Elle is great because it keeps up with the times but I am getting TIRED of seeing Actress after Actress or Singer after Singer on its' covers... Bring back the models!

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 4:27PM

I think Elle sold its soul to the devil a long time ago when it comes to cover choices. The fact is that the cover will sell.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 4:44PM

She's 5'2 and boring as all get out. Thsi body of hers isnt' that radical nor should it be hailed as volumptuous. Again..she's 5 2'

Sincerly,
5 11"

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 5:03PM

Does being in 'You, Me & Dupree' and never wearing a bra warrant Kate Hudson an ELLE cover?

posted by astralgirl02

May 06, 2009 5:27PM

Poor cover choice... she's kind of tacky.

posted by Jean Voltaire

May 06, 2009 5:33PM

#31 - Absolutely not. Nothing Kate Hudson does warrants her any covers...

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 5:38PM

I couldn't agree more with everyone who says bring the models back- if fashion magazines are to feature fashion (which so few actually do anymore) then models should be the obvious vehicle...but as someone above said, unfortunately a karlie kloss on the cover of vogue would garner more "who's that"s then say Kate Hudson or whomever...

but furthermore there is something to be said for the way in which these covers are shot. Yes Karlie would be way more interesting to look at then Kate BUT its that same old pose they always put their covergirls in, the body shot (see above) or the intimate, often demure close up (see most vogue covers). Remember the days (well im actually too young to 'remember') when fashion magazines had fierce action shots, movement and style! More like what one might see in an editorial. The problem is, if an actress is on the cover she wants to either have the whole "ohh look how hot my body is after two kids shot" or the "i'm deep and emotional" close up.

I say bring back the models yes, but let them come back with some of the flare and passion those old vogue/bizarre covers used to have

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 5:45PM

actually, #14, your original post DOES say "words and tone".
just saying...

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 6:49PM

also the dress was used for Halle Berry on Essence's March 2009 cover

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 6:52PM

I consider Elle to just barely be a fashion mag, and therefore the fact that megan fox is on the cover seems completely natural to me.

But seriously i dont understand why anyone would ever think she was beautiful. maybe she was a while ago, but her face has been destroyed by plastic surgery and now she looks like a cheap plaboy Bunny.

posted by guest

May 06, 2009 7:01PM

haha @ #2 and COMPLETELY agree with #7 and 37.

and yes, please tell us again abby why you "love elle" so much...??? does abby really know what she's getting herself into?

posted by rockferry

May 06, 2009 10:18PM

I think Megan Fox is gorgeous, but the lady on that cover does not look like Megan Fox.

posted by guest

May 07, 2009 12:13AM

I wonder if Europeans feel an aversion to their mags and think of Americans as being superior? .cough..

Abby: I really want to know why do you think of Elle as a fashion mag?
or if anyone else does..

posted by guest

May 07, 2009 12:21AM

Fake lips. Fake nose. Fake boobs. awesome job Elle..

posted by guest

May 07, 2009 5:16AM

@14
I understand your meaning, but the punctuation or lack thereof gave the wrong impression.

posted by guest

May 07, 2009 9:48AM

Oh, I totally agree and I am not looking forward to getting this issue in the mail...boo.

posted by RashomonRebel

May 07, 2009 10:11AM

I had a crush on Kate Lanphear long ago and now my GF won't let me go to any events where she knows Kate will be there.

posted by guest

May 07, 2009 7:33PM

I'm considering dropping my Elle subscription--and I've been subscribed to it since I was 17. I adore Kate Lamphear too, #44, but there isn't enough of her in it. It looks like they've started using poor photographers and it feels somehow cheaper and less exciting than it used to be when it arrived in the mail.
So, this strange cover choice is not a huge surprise when everything else there is going downhill. I wish they would take some hints from the International Elle's, like French Elle -- which is fabulous.

posted by guest

May 08, 2009 5:53PM

I think Elle should get rid of Joe Zee and start using Kate Lanphear a whole lot more.She can offer way more style to the magazine than Joe has since he arrived.And they should have never let Giles go.I love Kate Lanphear too.who doesn't?I do love Elle and I do consider it a fashion magazine maybe not in the ranks of Vogue any longer but I prefer Elle,Marie Claire,Harper's than Vogue any day.And I agree with bringing back models as covers or at least brining in REAL actresses.