Kate Hudson in January’s Vogue. What do you think?

Posted by:

kate_hudsonamericanvoguejan08.jpgkate_hudsonamericanvogue3jan08.jpgkate_hudsonamericanvogue2jan08.jpg

I like the pictures, but the cover looks more like a Good Housekeeping cover.  It doesn’t look like a “Vogue” cover…if that makes any sense.

Posted by:
Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 1:13pm
Filed under Kate Hudson | 11 Comments






Comments

Add Your Comment

  • First-time commenter? A confirmation email will be sent to you after you post your comment.

  • Please check your inbox ... your comment will not appear until you have confirmed your identity via email.

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

Comments

December 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

ouch, too much photoshop. But I love little Ryder’s pout.

December 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

She hit the gene lotto but these pictures don’t do her justice. More power to guys who are into women with no or small breasts but for me I like a little more up front. She is blessed with her mothers great behind and she will probably age real good. Remember folks all the sexy girls in High School look like crap after the 1st baby and the skinny ones just get better with age. If I only new!!!

December 17th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

She fell victim to being photoshopped. Doesnt even remotely look like her. I hate photoshopping, just makes everything fake, rightfully so. Her son is cute.. however… looks like a girl.

December 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Agreed on the photoshop! Her mouth does not look right in that first picture.

Scandalous Candice">Scandalous Candice
December 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I generally don’t have a problem with Kate Hudson. Until now. She needs to cut that child’s hair. It’s so freaking obnoxious how her and Celine Dion have boys for children that they parade around like little girls.

December 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

I hardly think Kate Hudson needs to be photoshopped–she’s got a gorgeous smile and no one would ever need to change it. On a different note, too bad fashion mags make their models wear such bizarre clothing! I agree that the “frock” she’s wearing on the cover is not sexy.

December 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Enough already – that child is hideous. What kind of parent subjects her child to that sort of potential for ridicule. Cut his hair and let him be a boy, or have another child and hope that it turns out the be the girl you wanted!!!
Kate is cute, but looks plastic. Photoshop probably didn’t do her any favors.

December 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

ditto… she’s so young and gorjus, ease up on the retouching! and yes ryder is presh!

December 17th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I heard that her son doesn’t want to cut his hair because his dad has long hair. Maybe to him, long hair IS masculine (even if my own preference differs).

I totally agree that the cover looks more like a Good Housekeeping cover. If it weren’t for the word “VOGUE” written in big, bold letters, I would have never guessed it to be the magazine it is.

I also agree that Kate certainly doesn’t need to be photoshopped, and it seems in this day and age that editors just can’t help themselves. And that’s unfortunate because the pictures end up looking doctored and fake, turning alot of us off from reading the magazine at all.

December 18th, 2007 at 7:34 am

She looks like Ashley Simpson in the picture of her standing and the other 2 pictures look nothing like her. She is annoying!

December 18th, 2007 at 8:30 am

Cut that kid’s hair! It is disgusting!
















Follow ICYDK