Newsgasm: Tasteful, Rubenesque Nudity Edition

15 Comments

1. 1
   jash
   Posted February 10, 2006 at 12:40 pm

   is it a bad sign when brit takes advice from lohan? “its like, yeah motherfu*ker, i’m fine”

2. 2
   EdHill
   Posted February 10, 2006 at 1:11 pm

   Damn, I wouldve loved to see Rachel Mcadams in that photo. Ah well, at least we get to see Scarletts ample bottom.

3. 3
   copygodd
   Posted February 10, 2006 at 2:31 pm

   someone get ms. knightley a cheeseburger and fries, stat!

4. 4
   Lizardqueen
   Posted February 10, 2006 at 4:18 pm

   I’m slightly grossed out by Scarlett. Something about the proportions, the neck, the powdery finish. I can’t quite figure it out. Regardless, she is an fine actress. Her performance in “Home Alone 3″ was beyond amazing.

5. 5
   EdHill
   Posted February 10, 2006 at 8:06 pm

   Granted her super white complextion is off putting, but EdHill likes girls with junk in the trunk.

   copygodd is right. Kiera just needs a few cheeseburgers. and a good dentist. British teeth are jsut scary.

6. 6
   Victoria
   Posted February 11, 2006 at 11:17 pm

   Okay that Tom Ford guy totally looks like Jeremy Piven and I’m thinking why the hell is Jeremy Piven on the cover of Vanity Fair? Keira Knightley could use a few cheeseburgers. EdHill, I thought you didn’t like fat chicks-you’re always picking on Chloe from Smallville and she’s not even fat unless you compare her to Keira. I think Scarlett Johanssen is a mediocre actress who ives one-note performances.

7. 7
   chronic
   Posted February 12, 2006 at 10:18 am

   Copygodd, I didn’t think anyone could even see Keira’s teeth anymore on account of those perma-pouting, collagen pontoons.

8. 8
   chronic
   Posted February 12, 2006 at 9:38 pm

   Awww, no fresh recaps today. I’m bored.

   Agreed, LQ, Scarlett’s pic is not so nice. Actually reminds me of very much of Ingres’ La Grande Odalisque, same kind of bizarro proportions, and the strange effect of not having any bones. Which is fine for a painting, not so much for an actual person.

   Also, bugging me is the pose, which seems cribbed from the Rococo painter, Boucher. The point, then, as I imagine now, is that although all her “parts” are covered up in the picture, it’s very strongly implied that if you turn her around 90 degrees you’d have that cooter just smiling right at you. Ew.

9. 9
   Ellen
   Posted February 12, 2006 at 10:52 pm

   Personally, I don’t think that picture is flattering for either of them. I really don’t like the positions of their bodies or their hair. (I know hair isn’t exactly meant to be the focus of the shot, but that’s the kind of thing heterosexual females are going to notice.)

   I don’t like how everyone is assuming that this is such a big missed opportunity for Rachel McAdams because I highly doubt she feels that way. I’m sure it’s not like she didn’t know that posing naked on the cover of a major publication would get her lots of attention. That wasn’t the point.

10. 10
    m_ruv
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 8:44 am

    Yeah, Scarlett looks like a seal or some sort of other marine mammal – I can’t quite place it.

11. 11
    Ellen
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 11:51 am

    A manatee?

12. 12
    m_ruv
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Yeah that could be it. She just looks fleshy and undefined, and there’s something weird about her face/neck, like her neck is the same thickness as her head. She normally looks great, so it’s a little odd.

13. 13
    EdHill
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    She’s got cankles.

14. 14
    Victoria
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Ellen- I am dying with your manatee comment-LMAO.

15. 15
    lurkertype
    Posted February 13, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    Good observations, chronic, if not as funny as Ellen’s “manatee” crack. That pose is just too WTF? to be truly attractive.