James Franco, The Muppets parody the Kimye-Vogue cover: hilarious?

vogue1

You know what I just realized? Jezebel’s tipster was right – back in February, they got a tip that Kim Kardashian was being photographed for Vogue, and everyone (including me) was like, “Eh, I bet it’s for an international edition.” But no. It was for the American edition. The timing makes sense – for an April cover, they would have needed to get the photoshoot done by late February. So… Anna Wintour gave in months ago. Incidentally, I think Wintour knew full well how controversial this cover was going to be. Typically, a new Vogue cover debuts by the middle of the month. I kept waiting to see why we were so far into March and we still hadn’t seen the Vogue cover yet. So that’s why they waited to debut it on an otherwise quiet Friday afternoon (also atypical for Vogue – they usually drop their covers online on Mondays or Tuesdays).

Anyway, everybody is yelling about it and everyone is screaming about how they’re going to cancel their subscriptions. Sure. I can see how Kim’s cover would be the final straw, but let’s not pretend that there weren’t questionable cover subjects (not to mention editorial content) before now. Let’s also not pretend that Vogue doesn’t have HUGE problems with the diversity – not just racially and age-wise, but also with size. Now, do I think Kim’s ass should have been the one to break the big-ass ceiling? No. But Vogue has other problems, that’s all I’m saying. There’s actually a rumor going around that Kate Upton was supposed to get this cover and Wintour changed her mind at the last minute. Vogue is denying that though.

Some sample reactions from the Vogue backlash: Nikki Finke at Deadline tweeted, “I’m loving the big backlash aimed at Anna Wintour for putting Kim Kardashian on Vogue cover. Issue should come with barf bag.” Sarah Michelle Gellar tweeted, “Well……I guess I’m canceling my Vogue subscription. Who is with me???” To which Kim’s BFF Jonathan Cheban tweeted to SMG, “Do U Matter?” Ouch.

I think my favorite reactions from The Great Kimye Vogue Scandal were the parodies though. I LOVE The Muppets “Vague” parody but James Franco gets a rare slow-clap from me for his Instagram parody – he IG’d the photo with “Love you, dog!” aimed at Seth. Awesome.

vogue muppets

vogue

Photos courtesy of Vogue, Franco’s IG, The Muppets’ Facebook.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

196 Responses to “James Franco, The Muppets parody the Kimye-Vogue cover: hilarious?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. NewWester says:

    Seth Rogan and Miss Piggy actually make pretty brides. At least they look HAPPY! Why does Kim never smile anymore? Is it the plastic surgery ?

  2. Eleonor says:

    I need a subscription to VAGUE.
    Btw: rumor has it Posh Beckham was caught eating a slice of pizza.

  3. Sullivan says:

    Aww. Miss Piggy is a lovely bride.

  4. Meme says:

    He looks like the thug he is and she looks like Prince. Seth makes a better bride.

  5. CC says:

    Well, I never heard of Jonathan Cheban, I had to look him up…and I’m still unimpressed.

    So, I’m guessing he matters even less, I am only familiar with big names.#

    The “alternative” covers take the cake, especially the Muppets one.

    • Liv says:

      Everyone knows Buffy! Who the fuck is Jonathan Cheban? Never heard of him before. He looks like a freak.

      • kri says:

        Wow, guess Jonathan doesn’t know some women in the biz got famous by doing work-like acting, singing, or writing-Kim got famous because her mother sold a tape of her own daughter getting pissed on. Compared to Kim and the rest of that genetic trash heap she oozed from, Sarah is a goddess. Now all we need is a nice, sharp stake….

    • lady mary. says:

      i hated that complete non entity called jonathan chiban had the guts to write that ,and since when did one had to be someone spl ,or smthn or loaded with cash to voice an opinion ,especially abt someone like Kim ,it changes the entire definition of who is being on the cover

    • Oh La La says:

      He’s Kim’s sidekick. I think he has a PR company.

      • jwoolman says:

        Yes, Kermit and Miss Piggy should have made the cover. Miss Piggy always looks fabulous with attitude to match. A true fashion icon.

        But Kim Kardashian’s fashion icon status is baffling to me. She so rarely looks good in her clothing choices. Saw a picture of her going to a baby shower -she was wearing a white crop top (of course) and long white skirt that actually would have looked nice on her, she wasn’t poured into it as usual so it actually fit her body – except the side was slit so she could dangle her leg in front of the cameras.. Really made it look stupid. Why does she do that if she’s supposed to be so fashionable?

    • Franny Days says:

      Aw see I think they are really close and if someone tweeted that about my best friend then I would’ve done the same. I just don’t get why people are being so mean about the whole kim getting a cover thing. I’ve never been a fan, but this is actually making me feel sorry for her.

    • Bridget says:

      Jonathan Cheban runs a crappy PR something or other – there was one season of a show about it on E!. He is just so gross, and a perfect BFF for Kim and Kris: utterly shallow, petty, and self-absorbed.

    • Dommy Dearest says:

      Sorry but the leech that only has anything because he’s a Kartrashian suck up. MAJOR Buffy fan right here. When someone said that Kim’s BFF said something I thought it was that girl Amanda Bynes wanted to look like, NOT this loser. He looks like he’s envious of Kourtney’s husband and has thus started to single white female Scott. I’m just trying to figure out how a woman that is famous from a porn matters more than a woman that played a character that has impacted so many lives. Out of Kim or Sarah which one is actually a role model? Oh that’d be Sarah. Who actually works (not that I think acting is hard work)? Sarah. I can go on and on but the little loser called her out on twitter and people STILL don’t know or care who he is.

  6. Hiddles forever says:

    I don’t understand all the fuss… Some people from USA could enlighten me please… Why are they mad at Wintour for the Kardashian cover? Just me to have the impression that Vogue was a “shallow” magazine anyway? :S

    • People irk me... says:

      Lord there isn’t enough time in the world to explain. First she is a porn queen who enjoys golden showers, had a sham marriage that lasted 72 days, and got knocked up about 40 days later by someone else. She is just a gross narsassitic, shallow vapid shell of a person. While her soon to be husband is an annoying yet dangerous egomaniac who will beat up anyone who pisses him off, write a check and do it again. He also thinks he is a genius and talks like a two year old. All they do is lie, cheat and steal. Yet are rewarded with it time and again.

    • Katren says:

      I don’t get it either – I’m no Kim fan but people seriously need to calm down. It’s just a magazine cover, there’s been trashy people on it before and there will be again. Kim is no worse than heaps of others that are on the cover.

    • We Are All Made of Stars says:

      It’s a shallow high-fashion magazine that has been going down the tubes of boringness and irrelevancy for the past few years under the helm of Anna Wintour. Nonetheless, people still feel like there should be some semblance of standards with who gets put on the cover, and putting a tacky braindead tabloid queen on the cover doesn’t fit the bill. Personally I wonder what happened to Ms. Wintour, who openly stated that her one cover regret was giving the Spice Girls the top honor. Wonder how she’ll explain this one in another ten years.

      • Liberty says:

        You just said every single thing I wanted to say.

        Poor Vogue.

        On the other hand, I love the tender emotion and “us-ness” between Franco and Seth — I think they’ll make it through many warm caring parody years.

      • Artemis says:

        For the past few years? Fashion has a history of racism and being backwards in general. They promote eating disorders and superficiality; what kind of great standards?

        AW is represented as some kind of fashion genius when everybody knows that Grace Coddington is the true master and she doesn’t have to be skinny and ‘fashionable’, she just is badass, smart and somebody who has accumulated many skills over the years. All AW does is go over the work of other people and decide if it’s ‘in’ or not and judging by the Vogue docu, she isn’t very good at it. She had the audacity to disapprove Grace’s work after giving the greenlight for the shoot, effectively losing a lot of money, time and energy. After Grace complained, AW all of a sudden approves 80% of the work again. AW is so stuck up, her work ain’t worth shit compared to the designer and creative directors.

      • Zimmer says:

        @Liberty. Would have also been fun to see a Tina and Amy parady.

      • fun factor says:

        It’s beyond absurd that someone like Kim–who for years has been an international laughingstock for consistently looking like poo in her ill-chosen outfits–should get a Vogue cover. If Mr. Blackwell was still alive, Kim would be at the very top of his famous Worst-Dressed List. Does a magazine like Sports Illustrated feature a football player who’s notorious for sitting on the bench more than any other player on his team? Or give the cover to a baseball player who has struck out the most times during the playing season? I am really puzzled.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      All of the above, plus, let’s face it, I am annoyed that they got it because they so desperately wanted, angled and begged for it, because THEY believe it means Kim has arrived as a fashion icon, while I think the words “Kim” and “fashion” don’t belong in the same sentence. They’re already so smug. Now they’ll be even more so.

    • Kelly says:

      I don’t get it either. Of course it’s a shallow pointless magazine, it’s about fashion! They take pictures of starved barely legal girls in “artistic” clothes and put them on 300 glossy pages, that’s it. I trully don’t get the fuss.

      Honestly, the reactions have been more hilarious than the cover. I had no idea so many people in this day and age still paid money for fashion magazine subscriptions, or that they were so invested in which overpaid vapid celebrity was on the pointless cover.

    • pru says:

      You may have seen Vogue as just a shallow magazine but to many people, it was much more.
      Fashion, at it’s highest level, is art, and fashion designer artists. Vogue used to be a way for this art to reach people en masse.
      For many, putting a Kardashian on the cover means that the days of this magazine representing fashion as an art form are over.

      • Hiddles forever says:

        @pru

        Lol, it is not art at all….

        I worked for years in a fashion company, an incredibly famous one (maybe one of the top three in the world…) and everything was shallow, from the employees to the cartoon-like fashion stylists and so on……

        Maybe fashion was an art in the forties and fifties when most of the designers’ stuff was custom made. Nowadays, after the globalization, whether you buy a 1000£ bag or one costing a tenth of that amount, it is the same thing.

      • Artemis says:

        @pru:

        Nope, Vogue is just shallow. Fashion is shallow.

        Vogue used to be a way for this art to reach people en masse.

        That’s a direct contradiction from what I’ve read from the ‘anti-KK on Vogue’ comments. Fashion is for rich people. People yelling everywhere about ‘standards’ when we (plain regular people) have NO say about trends or fashion since fashion is for rich privileged people. It’s one big circle jerk and we’re not included.

        KK would actually be useful to reach people en masse despite being born in wealth, because of her reality tv and pop culture status. So what is the problem? The unsubtle message from people reading gossip, is that the Vogue standard should be higher when their standard is just ‘rich and luxurious’. Which KK and KW are. People forget that AW put Sienna Miller (in the midst of her Getty-affair) on the September Issue when SM never really reached that Moviestar status and she was a glorified hipster wild girl. But she’s part of the 1% so she’s cool enough for the cover.

        They set the standards and since 90% of their products are unwearable (unless you’re a celeb) and too expensive (buying Vogue is the closest you can get to experiencing fashion), we’re relegated to the sidelines, an audience who can merely gaze at their products. We don’t decide what’s ‘in’ or if Vogue is dated or not. Vogue will still exist post-KK cover regardless of AW’s scrutinized decisions. We’re not buyers, they don’t make bank on plain people, how could they so why should they care about this backlash?

        People yelling about ‘standards’ exclude themselves in the process, it’s ridiculous.

      • pru says:

        My bad. I thought you wanted opinions as to why people are making a “fuss” about this, and not just people who agree with you.

      • pru says:

        @Artemis
        As a middle-class woman from IL, I know I am not going to influence any designers, or what Vogue itself is trying to display in it’s monthly magazine.
        I’m aware that Vogue is not selling it’s products to me. I’m sure Vogue is also well aware that it is not selling it’s product to me, as are the fashion houses that contribute to the magazine each month. Like you said, only a small percentage of people can afford those clothes. That’s who buys the fashions they make, the 1%. I have no reason to assume they think that they are selling to every person who buys that magazine. Like me, I think, most people pick up and buy a copy of Vogue to look and experience what is going on in the fashion world, purely through flipping through the pages of a magazine. The majority of subscriptions to Vogue are people just looking at the fashions – window shopping.
        That does not mean that fashion is not art. That does not mean fashion is shallow.
        Because I don’t influence rap music, is it not art? Of course not. Film makers, sculptors, photographers and many others, all create without considering where their art will end up, who will consume it. As they should. I can appreciate music for it’s beauty and truth like I would a gown as a piece of wearable art, even if it was not made for my body.
        That being said, I feel I can hold Vogue up to maintaining certain standards as a magazine even if I don’t influence it. And selling magazines is not an artistic standard.
        Having KK on the cover certainly wasn’t the first time AW put selling magazines for the sake of selling magazines above artistic standards. Like you said with SM, this has been happening for a while. And I feel that is all she is trying to do now. It was for many, the final nail in the coffin, the last bit on integrity being lost. What was not shallow, has become shallow.
        That’s what all the fuss is about.

      • Leah says:

        @artemis
        Kim grew up just as rich as Vogues readership. She is not some poor girl who became rich now if they put some riches to rag ghetto rapper on the cover and there was this kind of outcry you would have a point. Now not so much.

        You mention sienna got her cover because she was in the 1%. But Kim is and has always been part of the 1 % too. Why it pisses people off in the case of Kim is that she has no talent whatsoever, got famous because of a sex video and clearly got the cover because she is about to marry Wintours friend. Its actually called friends in high places which is the privilege of the rich and well connected so lets not pretend it some kind of break through for the masses.
        Don’t forget wintour has previously said there would be no reality stars on the cover so its pretty obvious why she went back on her word. If she only did it to reach the masses she could have put paris hilton on the cover, back in the day she was an equally big reality star but she wasn’t dating wintours friend.

      • Artemis says:

        @pru:

        I loved your reply, your arguments are good.

        While I don’t deny that you can enjoy art even if you’re not influencing it, I do not agree with the part that fashion is art.
        Reasons for my opinion being that fashion was always backwards, promoting an image that excludes body and racial diversities. For me, art is about imagination and if we can’t imagine diversity then I’m not going to call something art. If beauty only comes predominantly in 1 colour and 1 size, then your aesthetic is not representing the world you live in. Art should not about exclusion and discrimination. And I apply that for everything that falls under the ‘art’ category.

        You can hold them up to a certain standard, sure, I mean you can try but it’s not like they’ll listen. Because they don’t care, one big circle jerk which is why I think it’s funny when people are ranting about things that don’t matter and won’t be changed. Like Vogue hasn’t being putting white women in blackface, taped their eyes so they have an Asian look and promote eating disorders and it’s still happening yet KK is the thing that REALLY makes them question their standards?

        I’m not knocking you or anybody else down for enjoying fashion, I just find it odd that people argue this is about high standards. I haven’t seen high standards in fashion for a long ass time.

        @Leah:

        Except, I mentioned this very fact in my comment. I mention that both SM and KK are wealthy which is why their tacky asses were on the cover. The reason why people are popping blood vessels is because she’s tacky (reality tv + sex tape). I’m well aware of this. I covered all your points in my comment already so I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue about.

    • Hiddles forever says:

      Thanks for all the replies!

      Resuming….
      So Vogue is a shallow fashion magazine yet Kim K. on the cover sounds like an insult to fashion and decency, too much even for Vogue.
      Did I get that right?

      • CC says:

        Pretty much.

        It’s on principle of what Vogue was supposed to stand for, and that was a place KK had no place in. She still doesn’t.

        I don’t read Vogue, I find fashion magazines insanely boring and pointless, but as a symbol of the “old regime” and what it was supposed to stand for, I’m disgusted she’s there. amateur pr0n star-turned reality star has no place in mainstream, (supposedly) reputable publications.

  7. ZsaZsa says:

    Better than the originals

    @Hiddlesfever on word bingo they’re going to mention the words fame-hungry and Hoe

  8. don't kill me i'm french says:

    Kermit and Miss Piggy win!!!!

  9. Christin says:

    The parody covers look much better!

  10. People irk me... says:

    I have always loved SMG, and never thought I could love her more, yet once again she shows me how amazing she is. She really shows you what talent, family and acting is all about. She has more class in her pinky toenail than Kim lying lardtarshian tries to shove into her “size two” dresses…

  11. Nicole says:

    Vogue finally has a “plus size” model and this is one of the very few bi racial couples featured on any magazine, but people complain because… ?

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      … Kim Trashashian is on the cover!!! Kim Tacky Trashashian!!!!

    • Katren says:

      Duh because Kim is the devil and she’s the worst person to ever live!!! How dare she be in a magazine!!!! It’s just completely outrageous, I’ll never read anything again in protest!

    • Nev says:

      As much as we have panned Vogue lately, this is at the very least interesting and controversial AND it’s a great cover. Get over the tape folks, she evolved from that long time ago. Also, how many celebrities have used or had sex to get ahead in the fame game!!! It’s goes on behind closed doors!!!! Surely you must agree with that!!!!! Geez.

    • drea says:

      Um, you’re being sarcastic, right? Kim is not a model and that biracial coupling is a sham.

    • bluhare says:

      There are a lot of other plus sized models and interracial couples out there. Didn’t have to be her.

    • Seán says:

      @Anna

      When you said Vogue finally had a plus size model and biracial couple, I initially thought you were talking about Miss Piggy and Kermit. I haven’t quite woken up yet it seems.

      Don’t turn this into a race thing. Most people are objecting to the cover because it contains two unlikable narcissists. It has nothing to do with race or the size of the bride.

      I do agree that the level of outrage from some is a bit much though. At the end of the day, it’s just a magazine cover.

    • Red32 says:

      Kim isn’t a model, and she’d be the first one to bite your head off for calling her “plus-sized”. Also, who cares if they’re an interracial couple? They’re not the first, only, or last, and it doesn’t make them decent people. They’re still narcissistic, manipulative famewhores. Vogue could have put John Legend and Chrissy Teigen on the cover, but those two didn’t park themselves up Wintour’s ass for months.

    • Dommy Dearest says:

      I haven’t seen any hate on the interracial aspect. It’s more about Kim being who she is that is the outrage. They could have just put Kanye sitting on a toilet and it would have gone over well.

    • jilliiii says:

      according to Kim shes a size 2 which isn’t plus size. hahaha ;)

    • stinky says:

      im hearing good arguments on all sides of it y’alls.
      we’re not scrappin;, are we?
      everybody’s sayin valid stuff…
      i agree w/ prior comments that (to me) VOGUE conjured art. it used to, anyway.
      starting w/ captivating “models”, lovely styling & photography, exciting & gorgeous clothing/accessories/shoes/trends/lifestyles and locations.
      its a very artistic collaboration that i used to love and look forward to.
      now, not so much. it’s been years since i bought one, and i sure as HELL aint buyin this one. “W” will still get my now&then dollar.
      as for gushing over a “plus-size “”"model”"”, PLEASE – even her fat ass is FAKE.
      yes – the eff word. FAT. i really used to think she was gorgeous, but if there was ever a disaster-example that i’d shield my non-existent children from, it w/b KK. Vapid, fake and faker. Her widdle baby is adorable. I’m not a hater – just sayin.

  12. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Words cannot describe how much I loathe these two. But… I also loathe the human instinct to gang up on people and rip them to shreds. I’m not talking about commenting on a celebrity website (it’s cute when we do it), but it sort of bothers me when other celebrities (like Sarah Michelle Gellar) are tweeting who’s with me! I don’t know, I guess I’m a hypocrite?

    • bluhare says:

      We’re all hypocrites about something, goodnames. Meh, let’s dish.

    • pru says:

      When The Muppets and Franco/Rogan are doing parodies; they are making a comment of sorts. Just not a written one. A lighter comment. They are making it a joke.
      Is it because SMG took it seriously and made a negative comment that has you bothered? I asked because when I first saw her response I was a bit bothered myself, and I’m not sure if I should be. She’s just a person giving her opinion like all of us.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, I think you’re exactly right. The Muppet thing was teasing and light-hearted. The “issue should come with a barf bag” comment was funny. SMG’s comments just seemed mean spirited, and I especially didn’t like the “who’s with me?” part because it was an invitation to gang up on and trash somebody. It just seems beneath her, or not a positive way to use her influence, although you’re also correct that she has a right to her opinion as much as I do. But I think you put your finger on the reason it bothered me.

  13. giselle says:

    This whole thing is being blown out of proportion & giving Kimye a lot of publicity. Someone fill me in on the last time Vogue did anything revolutionary, insightful, creative, or something that didn’t pander to their audience? Give me a break.

  14. mimif says:

    I love the irony that it had to take Kimye to get me to like Franco!

  15. Kiddo says:

    Meh, they are good to goof on.

    What the cover represents is a culture’s ultimate surrender to mediocrity, worship of all things inconsequential, privileged, monied, shallow, and hype for nothingness. Marketing is marketing’s own reward, there need not be a quality product. But we’ve seen this coming for a while with the onslaught of reality TV. We saw it with the hijacking of corporations where a company like Bain takes over a toy store to kill it for self-profit only; who needs an actual product anymore to get rich? Truth told, I stopped buying magazines, for the most part, so this has no impact on personal spending.

    It does make the industry look silly, in that this is a non-ironic self-portrait of themselves, or of what they’ve become. They use Terry Richardson, after all, and his ‘genius’ to represent ‘art’.

    “The Emperor’s New Clothes” sums it up nicely. They can pretend that the unwashed masses don’t get fashion because they don’t have the special vision. But in the end, who is caught naked?

  16. lady mary. says:

    does Beyonce have her cover ? iam curious ,if not she must be seething right now

  17. Lexie says:

    Yes but the only way she got the cover was to share it with Kanye — her future ex-husband. I’d bet this isn’t the dream cover she always imagined.

  18. tifzlan says:

    Sarah Michelle Gellar is a pop culture icon on a level that Kim will never EVER be. Buffy still has a strong following, even today, and Kim will never know what that feels like. Jonathan Cheban? Who? What?

  19. Erinn says:

    Meh. It’s not unexpected. Wintour is trying to get buzz and vogue is no pillar of class and light anymore. So surprise! Backlash. Everyone hates the kardashian clan, and I’m certainly no fan. But this was Wintours decision. I think I’ve finally hit the saturation point of kardashian hate. I just don’t have the energy for the outrage and disgust towards a person who really doesn’t affect my life

    • Lexie says:

      Agreed. And Miley, Kim, etc. love the hate because it’s a strong reaction. I choose their worst fear — apathy.

      • Reece says:

        Mind if I take the seat next to you?
        Although I think we can officially call Vogue a tabloid now. ;)

      • Miss Pasión says:

        See people always say love is the opposite of is hate. I don’t think so. In reality hate is a different kind of love. I think the opposite of love is indifference towards that person. Even if we hate on Kimye they still get attention. I think that’s why we see so much mediocrity in the world today because people feel the need to voice their opinions about those who are their aversions. Any press is seen as good press. However, ignoring people is the best way to make them go away.

        My boss is a well known book editor and he always says things like “I sell what people want” and “I sell what turns heads.” I think the lesson here is to turn your head for the right people and reasons.

      • Artemis says:

        @Miss Pasión

        Yep. People forget that Paris Hilton dissapeared when KK arrived. She got ignored and the 100 posts/day about PH were replaced by KK. She’s on that exact same level only… she went about it smarter and learnt from PH’s mistakes. She dated famous people, wasn’t outed as an animal abuser, racist etc. and now she’s got a Vogue cover! People can complain as much as they like, it didn’t make PH go away just like KK won’t go away so it’s their own fault tbqh. People don’t learn, they can’t help themselves! They do love her, she provides endless gossip and debates. Hate IS a different kind of love :)

  20. frisbeejada says:

    Up until now I thought Franco was a pretentious, up himself. little twerp, but that send up is brilliant – and that’s from a person of foreign persuasion who doesn’t really understand what all the fuss is about, has never seen Kim Kardashian on TV and has never heard one of Kanye West’s songs – I take a certain amount of pride in my beyond uncoolness…

  21. paola says:

    I love Sarah Michelle Gellar even more now. She isn’t afraid to say it as it is.
    In my book ‘she counts’ more than a bunch of Kardashians. The fact she kept her private life away from the media is something celebrity should do on a daily basis.
    Plus (leaving on a side for a moment that Kim is a glorified pron star) when has anyone ever seen her in any clothes that would not be considered trashy? So why should she be on Vogue? Just because of her pushy bf? Anna Wintour should retire now.
    I feel sorry now that I don’t have a subscription because I would totally cancel it now. Just to prove my point.

    Now, if i was Sarah Michelle i wouldn’t want to to be twitter-shamed by a man with that haircut and face (lazy eye included)

    http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Jonathan+Cheban/Byrdie+Bell+attending+Charlotte+Ronson+Fall/qYY8wd8gBWT

  22. Micah says:

    There is more emotion in both parody covers, there there is in Kim’s face.

  23. LAK says:

    Poor Victoria Beckham.

    She’s wondering what she has to do to get a cover……

  24. Miss M says:

    Who doesn’t know who SMG? Of course, Buffy matters!

    Who’s Jonathan G? Is he the clown who follows Kim K around like a puppy?! All right…

  25. eliza says:

    As if the hugely repulsive Jonathan Cheetos matters. Dude wouldn’t be remotely on the publics radar if he wasn’t scraping his butt like a wormy dog trying to be Kim’s bff. The dude is pathetic. At least Gellar has been a working actress since childhood. Kim has been a working urinal since the early 2000′s. Biiiiig difference. Just because Kim is relevant for porn and fame whoring does not make her relevant in a positve way.

  26. iheartjacksparrow says:

    @Kaiser – Nikki Finke is no longer with Deadline Hollywood Daily. She was fired, or she quit, depending on which story you believe, at the beginning of November last year.

  27. Jaderu says:

    I loathe everything that Kim K is and represents. However, do I think she doesn’t deserve a Vogue cover? No. Vogue is what most magazines are…what is artistically, culturally, intellectually, and politically on our minds and what we’re talking about. Unfortunately, Kim is what we’re talking about. I just point to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hitler, Stalin covers of Time magazine. Extreme example…I know. People hate them and were pissed but you can’t deny that they are button pushers and are/were being talked about.
    And this isn’t Time magazine. It’s Vogue. It’s about fashion. It’s not brain surgery and this isn’t the New England Journal of Medicine.
    Kim K is a fashion icon. Like it or not. We (yes we here at Celebitchy too) talk about what she’s wearing until we’re blue in the face. Mainly because there’s really nothing else to talk about because she’s vapid, tacky, and morally bankrupt. But she is also a cultural phenomenon and has just as much right to be on the cover of Vogue as any other.
    Come back with your OTT anger when she makes the Person of the Year cover of Time. Then we know for sure that the end is nigh. I’ll pack my bags and be prepared to jump off the planet.

    P.S. Anna Wintour has done her job because we’re all talking about it and the issue will sell
    P.S.S. Miss Piggy looks absolutely breathtaking.

    • Kim1 says:

      How is Kim a fashion icon? I have yet to see anything she has worn that is imitated or even praised for being fashionable.If she was a true icon Kanye wouldn’t be on cover.

    • idk says:

      Well I’m sure there are some (crazy) people out there that think she deserves to be on the cover of Time Magazine and will argue as to why Kim should be “The Person of The Year”.

      Kim is not a fashion icon. Please look up the meaning of that word before using it to describe her. Anna, herself mentioned nothing about fashion when stating why she put them on the cover. The hashtag says “most talked about”. They are talked about, that is true. But if that’s the case, many people should have made it on the cover of Vogue. Last year, PSY was huge, and people love the Duck Dynasty folk. Why weren’t they on the cover lol? Justin Bieber is ridiculously famous. Why were Justin and Selena not on the cover of Vogue? I bet more young men copy Justin’s style than Kanye’s and more girls would love to look like Selena than Kim. So why Kimye? They hold nothing special above the other names I mentioned. Why didn’t Anna put Kim on the cover when Kim was at the height of her “career” (when she was will Reggie)? Kim’s popularity has declined massively in the past few years, so why put her on the cover now?

  28. Franny Days says:

    It’s a MAGAZINE for god’s sake. The first half of which is filled with ads for things most people couldn’t afford in their wildest dreams. It’s all superficial, and I don’t understand why everyone is acting like vogue is the be all end all. Silly.

  29. Bridget says:

    I don’t know what’s worse: Kim K being on the cover of Vogue, or the fact that she’s on the cover well into her downswing. Wintour has managed to be both tacky and hopelessly out of date at the same time, neither of which are descriptors she would appreciate.

    • Tiffany says:

      It just seems everyone involved lacks all self awareness. Like there is none.

    • lw says:

      That’s what gets me too. I could understand if Kim got the cover a few years ago, even if I would have disagreed with it. But doing it now only solidifies how behind the trend Vogue is. Anna is not leading anything. She’s following. Even Kanye is on the downswing. His best music is far, far behind him.
      Sure, I still like to read an occasional Kimye blog post. But even the posts and comments are fairly boring and repetitive. Nothing compelling left there.

  30. bettyrose says:

    Why does Seth have more cleavage than Piggy?

  31. Ruyana says:

    Jonathan Cheban has a lot of nerve to say to someone “Do U Matter?” What is he but a hanger-on, a human dingleberry if you will.

  32. idk says:

    Jonathan Cheban is so annoying. What does he do other than follow Kim around? He needs to be quiet. At least SMG has a REAL career.

  33. Nanea says:

    The Vague Kermiggy issue – that is something I’d buy IRL, even if I don’t do dead-tree editions any longer.

    I’ve seriously been wondering since Friday what’s in it for AW to have put Kimye on that cover.

  34. Peppa says:

    I like the Muppet one, Miss Piggy should have been on the cover years ago! Here’s the thing about Kim Kardashian, I don’t hate her and realize that she isn’t an evil human being who has committed atrocities against humanity. People come in our salon from time to time with pictures of her wanting their hair or make up done like her, so I understand that she has fans and people want to emulate her (for the record, almost all of these people are teenagers or very young women). She is, however, not a fashion icon and I find it ridiculous anyone would claim that. Jennifer Aniston is also someone people want their hair like (and have for years and years before I became a hairdresser) and I wouldn’t call her a fashion icon either. I read a lot of the comments defending Kim, and the only thing her fans can come up with to support her is that she is she is culturally relevant (so is Justin Beiber) and that people who don’t like her are “haters” (which, again, leads me to believe her fans are very young and/or very immature). To call Kim Kardashian a successful business woman is ridiculous, since most of her business ventures haven’t been successful. She is vapid, shallow and devoid of a distinct personality or any discernible talent. She simply watched her former bff Paris Hilton become famous simply by being rich and being on a reality show, and followed in her footsteps. I’m sure people would have been just as upset if Paris had been on a Vogue cover. I think it’s ridiculous to claim that their is a mob mentality to gang up on Kim Kardashian, people are just baffled as to why a reality star is on the cover of Vogue. I’m not going to say I will never buy Vogue again, but I certainly won’t buy this issue. I may not matter as Jonathan Cheban would say, but the money from my wallet matters in the end. I understand watching Keeping up With the Kardashians for some mindless entertainment (I watch Teen Mom and The Real Housewives myself) but I just can’t understand going hard defending Kim Kardashian’s character.

    Sorry that was tl;dr, but I just wanted to explain why I’m not a fan of Kim Kardashian and why I don’t like that she’s on the cover of Vogue. I do like Kanye as an artist though. His songs are great to work out to :)

    • Miss Pasión says:

      Think about why Kim’s business ventures fail. She has investors she has to pay back if it becomes successful. If it fails she walks away with all of the money and never has to pay anyone back. I’d say she’s a con artist but anyone that was stupid to invest with her deserves what they got.

  35. Miss Pasión says:

    This has little to do with Kim and Kanye and more to do with Anna trying to burn down the house that she built. Even the people at Condè Nast thought Kate Upton was going to be on the cover. Anna’s days at Vogue are numbered, her editorial board wants her gone and they want to replace her with Grace Coddington (not a good idea) or Alexandra Shulman (better idea). Anna can’t fight this off any longer, she doesn’t have the clout she used to. Anna has had the Kim and Kanye photos since January and she was holding onto them for the moment her editorial board pissed her off. That moment must have come sometime this month. Over what I don’t know.

    I work in the book publishing industry but there’s always fun and juicy gossip over in the magazine world. One of my co-workers used to be an assistant photo editor for Vogue so he gets all kinds of info at what’s going on there. Sounds like World War 3 in the board room mixed with The Devil wears Prada becoming prohetic. Expect for the next few months for Anna to be making some odd choices for Vogue and by the end of the year a new efotor being named in her place (my personal prediction is sometime after the Met Gala like in June or July). The longer everyone waits the more chances Anna has to turn the magazine to ashes.

    • Kiddo says:

      Ha, that’s interesting and funny. So Kimye was used as a weapon in a personal vendetta. Anna came loaded with an M60. Thanks for sharing.

    • jazzy says:

      Ooh, that’s juicy!!! Makes sense now. I wonder if the Valentino 2nd row shenanigans is what put her over the edge.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Yes, thanks for very juicy and interesting info!

    • idk says:

      Maybe this is why Kanye was hounding Anna for so long. Maybe he knew her time at Vogue was almost up and this was his only shot of getting Kim on the cover. I doubt he will have the same relationship with any other Vogue editor.

      Kim shouldn’t feel so proud. She got the cover because of Kanye, not due to her own merit. She is not a fashion icon. It’s tacky she is in a wedding gown, especially considering the circus show that was her last wedding. No shame.

    • Jestie says:

      Interesting, very interesting. I had been scratching my head as to what the motivation might be. I couldn’t understand why you would risk all those subscriptions being cancelled in return for a few more one-off purchases by Kimye fans or those interested in the controversy. Though with everything online the question is will these fans even bother, and word seems to be that Kardashian’s can’t sell tabloid mag covers anymore let alone more pricy mags.

  36. kibbles says:

    I want James and Seth to parody the alternate music video for Bound 2 that was made for Vogue magazine. That song is so ridiculous. I can’t help but laugh each time I hear “uh huh, honey”.

  37. jazzy says:

    Seth and Franco are good, but Kermie and Miss Piggy did it best.

  38. Sayrah says:

    Love the Rogen/Franco cover. I watched the Bound 2 spoof again last night. I was nearly in tears laughing so hard.

    Honestly I think Kim looks beautiful on the cover. Kanye just looks grumpy as usual. I like to think of the South Park gay fish episode whenever I see him angry.

  39. idk says:

    How did they decide that Seth would be Kim and Franco would be Kanye? Does Seth have some junk in the trunk?

  40. chloeee says:

    Do you think she’s making that epic cry face about the backlash? Silver lining, people!

  41. prayforthewild says:

    I see the Kimye Vogue cover as a watershed event. Like after this there will be a, “Were they on the cover of Vogue before or AFTER Kimye???” type of reaction when someone gets the Vogue (Vague?) cover. I wonder if people will start to turn it down, I think so.

    Also, Kermit and Piggy Forevah!!!

  42. The Original Mia says:

    Piggy and Kermit look like a couple in love with each other as opposed to being in love with their fame and egos. Franco & Rogen is making me laugh and I hate them both, but there’s no denying they love each other.

    I hope this is the end of Wintour at Vogue. It’s gone down in stature. Everything eventually comes to an end. It would have been nice for her to go out on top, but this cover virtually assures she won’t.

    Victoria is probably laughing her ass off at all of this. She succeeded without the anointment of Wintour and Vouge.

    As for that little pissant Cheban, dude needs to STFU. Smidge will be remembered for her work long after his BFF disappears from the cultural landscape. He won’t even be a footnote.

  43. sarah says:

    First let me say that I had a dream last night that I was editing the next issue of Vouge and Anna was standing over my shoulder the whole time and I was worrying she was somehow setting me up. It was a very detailed dream! That’s what I get for reading gossip before bed.

    Second, I’m worried all this attention is going to end up in Kimye’s favor. Like, ooh here’s the Most-tweeted Vogue cover, or whatever. I wish this cover to be forgotten, not immortalized and labeled “controversial” so that she can feel important.

    Third, what about Mylie* Cyrus? Didn’t she get her Vogue cover pulled because she’s too raunch? Um…

    *spelling? I’m not Googling her to check.

    • Christin says:

      Your dream brings up an interesting question. Wonder who is going to get chewed out IF this was some kind of last-minute switch? Seems like Anna should be the only one who feels the wrath, but in the business world the cr@p often runs downhill.

  44. Makeuplover says:

    If putting Kim on the cover of Vogue was approved why not Miley Cyrus? At least Miley has some talent, no? Also, if the Vogue cover happened this means eventually Kim K will also get a star on the walk of fame and will be invited to Oscar/VF parties. You wait and see. BTW, didn’t Anna cropped Kim from the pictures of the met gala last year? Why is she now giving her the cover? Something is so wrong to me. What gets under my skin is that people seems to forget she might be worth millions but they are the epitome of what is wrong with society. I am done with the K-klan when I saw the episode of Khloe wanting to go to skid row and Kourtney said to Khloe: “why do you even care”? That goes to show that all that charity work they so “love” to do is just for tax deduction purposes. I can only hope for the day the K-klan is completely gone!

    • nancywe says:

      Yes I have to agree about Miley, she does have some talent and has a larger fanbase then either Kanye or Kim. In the end, Miley wins while Kanye and Kim basically had to harass Anna Wintour to get this cover. It was not deserved at all.
      Vogue is not the end all and be all of things. I highly doubt Kim will get rewared with a star on the walk of fame. She is just lucky Kanye is pals with Anna Wintour that’s all. Unless Kanye knows some people who organize the walk of fame stuff, then it will not happen. And many A listers in Hollywood has said so many horrible things about her, they just don’t want to be associated with her.
      There are so many A list pals Kanye has that have alienated him due to Kim. He can’t even sell out concert seats anymore and Kim’s show at its lowest point.
      Actaully, someone uploaded part of Kims sex tape on Vogues facebook page, to remind them of what she is really is and why she is famous.

  45. Amy says:

    James Franco can be so funny when he isn’t spouting pseudo intellectual rants about his “art” and his “craft” and trying to do a million phds that tie in with so many fields, I don’t even know what he has a phd in anymore (does he still go to school?). He should work with Funny or Die more often or host SNL or something. Less tortured artist, more parodies!

  46. Caz says:

    A part of me really hopes the Kartrashians are in debt and all the excessive displays of wealth are all for Keeping Up Appearances. I want to see them go the way of some of the more financially dubious “real housewife” cast…a bright shiny star for a short time then the inevitable fade into obscurity and normal finances.

    Shame on people for falling for their sham performances.

    PS – all the other Vogue editors are laughing at Anna.

  47. Jade says:

    Erh you guys realise that making a huge fuss about this, is just what the Klan wants? If nobody reacted to the cover, it’s travesty to Kimye and Vogue. Unfortunately, I have to comment to say that. I’m not a fan of fashion mags or whatever this Kimye is by the way.

    Question: I think they got the hash tag wrong? The most talked about couple is Brangelina.

    Also if I’m Victoria, I sure wouldn’t appear on Vogue now. Just continue with my fab life.

  48. db says:

    James Franco is just hopelessly try-hard to me

  49. Diana says:

    It was fabulous to watch the entire world on a meltdown over this cover.

  50. Natasha says:

    I am so over the Kim bashing. It is tired and so is Seth and James. Instead of Seth jumping to make fun of people why doesn’t he look for a movie where he plays and adult and not some parody of a man