Sweet Jane 61 Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 NEW YORK (AP) -- Pick up this month's Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair and you'll see two lovely young stars-of-the-moment, Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson, posing alluringly in the altogether. Open the foldout, and you'll even see Johansson's bare buttocks. What you won't see is a third, equally lovely young actress, Rachel McAdams of "Wedding Crashers" fame. It seems McAdams arrived at the photo shoot and decided she didn't want to take her clothes off. And so, sitting between Johansson and Knightley is fashion designer Tom Ford, the issue's guest editor. He nuzzles Knightley's ear and, though he shows plenty of chest hair, is fully clothed. Presumably, no one thought of asking him to disrobe. Great cover!! You will have to check it out. The ladies are very hot!! So do you think covers like this are ok? Some folks think that it is a no-no. I say bring it on...gals and guys...nothing wrong with beautiful people showing a little skin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I saw that a while ago, i think it was in a newspaper. i have no issue with them being naked, although not sure about tom ford. it just creates the wrong impression , at least to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I truly don´t care about what people will show or not... I wasn´t even interested in Two Virgins picture, and I was 14, so I guess I´ve seen enough scandal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 eh...that's nothing, we get to look at Uncle Joe everyday.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 My father in law gets Vanity Fair. I waited very patiently for him to unwrap it so I could ogle Scarlett Johansson, for whom I have "a thing." I would be lying if I said I did not like the cover more than just a little! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulGirl Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 i don't have a problem with people showing skin but i looked the photo up and i don't like it at all! and i'm a big fan of scarlett! it's quite pretentious, trying to be photographic art but not quite managing not to be seedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 but don't you think it loods seedy because of tom ford? it just looks like they are his naked girls or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulGirl Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 exactly, it seems like they're part of his harem or something. the girls are in quite submissive positions. there's definitely something a little sinister about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 No problem. As long as it's not just the girls who are doing the stripping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 wasn't it Vanity Fair that did a cover of a hugely pregnant and painted Demi Moore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think it was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulGirl Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 yup it was, i saw it when looking up VF covers to find the scarlett/keira one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth-Angel Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Tom Ford is cute. The cover is ok, wouldn't make me buy the magazine though (I'm not the biggest Keira fan...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Open the foldout, and you'll even see Johansson's bare buttocks. Score! What you won't see is a third, equally lovely young actress, Rachel McAdams of "Wedding Crashers" fame. It seems McAdams arrived at the photo shoot and decided she didn't want to take her clothes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 trying to be photographic art but not quite managing not to be seedy. I may not know art, but I know what I like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulGirl Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 *sigh* boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Sorry , dear , we just suck and won't/ can't apologise for it easily ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanAm Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Keira Knightley looks positively emaciated in the photograph. So many actresses today go for the skeletal look like Knightley or Teri Hatcher. Yuk! I didn't think the picture of a gay guy nibbling Knightley's ear looked particularly sinister. I think Tom Ford looks a bit like Jeremy Pivens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now