Naomi Scott in Burberry at the UK ‘Aladdin’ premiere: beautiful or budget?

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

Here are photos from the London premiere of Disney’s live-action Aladdin. I still… don’t know what to think. Granted, I’m not the target market for these live-action remakes, just as I wasn’t the target market for the original ‘90s animated films. But considering how Disney owns everything now and they like to run everything with precision, doesn’t Aladdin just seem messy from start to finish? The casting, putting Will Smith in as Genie, the look of the film? It’s just… not up to Disney standards. LOL, it will probably make hundreds of millions of dollars, I’m sure.

To me, even the premiere looked sort of budget, although I think that’s quite common with premieres for kids’ films these days. The organizers of the premieres are not aiming for everything to look perfect. The fashion choices though… good lord. Naomi Scott – who plays Jasmine – wore Burberry and the house of Burberry did her dirty. The design purposefully bulges and bunches around her waist and hips… yikes. Naomi’s hair could be a lot better than this too.

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

Mena Massoud plays Aladdin and he went for comfort. Will Smith looked nice though. Also included in these photos: Marwan Kenzari, who is super-cute.

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

Director Guy Ritchie and his wife Jacqui Ainsley. Yikes, her hair.

European gala premiere of 'Aladdin'

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

28 Responses to “Naomi Scott in Burberry at the UK ‘Aladdin’ premiere: beautiful or budget?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lightpurple says:

    Why does her dress have belt loops?

    • Tris says:

      They are giant middle-aged-fat-office-worker-poly-blend trousers! Attached to a corset. For reasons unknown.

      • Elizabeth says:

        That was exactly my thought! The bodice I like. The color I like. Then BLAM! Holy shirtballs that is awful.

  2. Lucy says:

    Naomi is so beautiful! She deserves better styling. I’m sure she could pull off some beautiful things.

  3. Case says:

    That dress is so pretty from the front. Then she turns to the side and yikes.

  4. tamimi says:

    Her outfit from the side makes it look like she’s posing for one of those before and after extreme weight loss photos (“Look how big my jeans are now!”). I love her makeup, though. So very pretty.

    Mena Massoud looks charming; he’s got a great smile and I always like seeing people from my part of the world do well.

  5. Gabriella says:

    So it’s supposed to look like oversized pants are falling off of her?

  6. Amaryis says:


  7. Lolly says:

    Ugh I’m still mad over her casting. And the American accents.

    • ME says:

      Yeah. I am sure Naomi is a wonderful actress but this role should have went to someone else. She looks nothing like Jasmine and Naomi isn’t even Arabic. They should have went with a new comer…someone Arabic…more exotic looking. Naomi simply looks like a Caucasian girl with a spray tan. I actually think she did darken her skin for the role because in the movie she is probably a few shades darker than her natural color.

      • tamimi says:

        I think it’s important that even as we say Naomi isn’t right for the role that we don’t erase her non-white heritage. I’m seen her slammed as being “white plus a tan” – which she isn’t for starters; and, truthfully, she could pass as local in the middle east, which is where I’m from. I think it can seem disrespectful. I’ve also heard people say the same thing about Meghan. Whatever people’s motives, good or bad, It’s erasure and it’s nagl.

        We can acknowledge that she’s not white but that she’s also not right for this role. There’s a discussion to be had about colorism in Hollywood but we can do that respectfully without erasing people’s heritage just because we don’t agree with the decisions of the producers/directors.

        You can also be Arabic and not look at all “exotic” but the role of Jasmine did need somebody closer to the original animated Disney version, I agree.

      • ME says:


        I am Indian for starters. I’m not ignoring her Indian heritage. I just said she’s wrong for the role because she looks nothing like Jasmine. Jasmine is supposed to be an Arabic princess. If Jasmine was an Indian princess. I’d say Naomi was a good fit. Jasmine is the kind of Arabic princess that DOES LOOK EXOTIC. She has beautiful Arabic features (very common to a lot of Arabic women). So the actress playing her should also look exotic with similar features. Nothing wrong with what I said. I stand by my words.

    • Amaryis says:


  8. Soupie says:

    Both dresses are awful. And forget about the hair. That silver-green rag is horrible!

  9. Originaltessa says:

    I feel like this movie is going to seriously flop. The casting of the leads is uninspired, imo.

    • Ain’tNoTelling says:

      Why do these photos look like they were taken at a high school prom, in a really ugly gymnasium?

      All of these outfits look HORRIBLE. And the styling looks like it was done by the high school drama club’s wardrobe coordinator.

      OMG. WTF?

      The makeup and hair on Naomi is uninspiring and ultra common. I can’t wait for this whole instagram makeup look to be over. It’s not even creative, or unique. It’s just a bunch of product on one face. It’s stage makeup for drag performers, & it does not look good, open, inviting, touchable, or feminine. Please, make it stop.

      Naomi should have worn something out of her own closet. Yikes. I think she’s beautiful, and looks Italian, rather than Middle Eastern. Middle Eastern women are stunning, in a way that is not represented by Naomi. They usually have larger noses, and wider eyes.

      Will Smith looks like he jumped straight out of Johnny Carson’s hosting seat, back in 1972.

      All of these pieces are Burberry, aren’t they? Ugh, just awful.

      Man, I actually wanted to see this, & I’m just so uninspired by the whole thing. But surely, I’m just a tad more inspired than Guy Ritchie appears to be. I can’t believe he actually directed this, but hey – London real estate ain’t cheap, nor are castles in Scotland.

    • otaku fairy... says:

      I’ve kind of got a feeling that it’s going to be a hit, or at least do fairly well.

  10. runcmc says:

    Wait, GUY RITCHIE directed this? That seems so weird to me. He has a really distinct style and …well, I wouldn’t think it would fit the source material.

    I’m totally watching it though and yes, I am ashamed of myself for it. But I am *not* watching the new Lion King because that really is a ridiculous money grab. It’s the exact same movie with updated graphics! It’s not “live action”, it’s CGI.

  11. Agenbiter says:

    Why is she showing so much skin while the men are all covered up? Do better with the power dynamics, people.

    • Um says:

      What? She’s wearing a dress that shows her arms and shoulders and the men are wearing suits. Seems pretty normal.

      Anyway, the dress might be better if the skirt was a lighter fabric that draped. That’s what I thought it was from the front but from the side it looks terrible.

      • Agenbiter says:

        Ever wonder why suits consist of multiple layers of cloth? Dress For Success is an easy read.

      • Um says:

        Yeah, that’s a conversation and I understand but did you comment on every single Met Gala post with the same comment? It’s warm out so it’s appropriate to wear a sleeveless dress so I don’t get the big deal.

      • Agenbiter says:

        Standards for fancy dress – and costume parties – are one thing. But the men here aren’t dressed for a gala, and they are all wearing multiple layers.

      • Ain’tNoTelling says:

        @ Agenbiter: they all look horrible, multiple layers aside.

        Power dynamics don’t need to be represented via clothing. Power is distributed via equal pay for men and women, who perform equal amounts of work. That’s the real conversation to be had when discussing power dynamics, because numbers are not subjective, whereas social and gender nomenclature can be bent, therefore, become meaningless in polarized, economic stratas.

        Money talks.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        @AintNoTelling: “Power dynamics don’t need to be represented via clothing.”+1000. Modesty hasn’t solved women’s problems, and neither does conflating equality with coerced sameness. This sort of thing is why people with conservative stances are able to so easily use feminism to back up their bigotry and oppression of women, though. They try to use It against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people too sometimes. In a world where women and girls are blamed for all kinds of disrespect and abuse based on their immodesty, it’s best to slow down with telling women to cover up for the greater good. Just a few years ago people were rightfully mad about conservatives insisting that Michelle Obama’s shoulders needed to be covered (Because Respectability!1). I don’t see how that same message suddenly becomes a good one when applied to an Indian woman (or any woman, for that matter) whose shoulders aren’t covered in the presence of men, just because they didn’t decide to coordinate their outfits with her. Her shoulders not being covered isn’t automatically a sexual thing either.