Cover Girl: Cameron Diaz for ELLE UK

Posted on May 05, 2011

Darlings, Cameron graced two versions of the ELLE UK cover and we’re partial to the one where she doesn’t flash her panties.

UK ELLE June 2011 Issue
Editorial: “She Who Dares”
Photographer: Jan Welters
Stylist: Sasa Thomann

We’re feeling uncharacteristically sympathetic toward Cameron today. You see, because there wasn’t much on TV last night, and because we really, REALLY needed to unwind (Launch a web site some time! It’s fun and totally stress-free! You’ll see!), we rented that Seth Rogen Green Hornet movie. What? We just wanted something mindless! Well, we got it. Poor Cameron seemed to be in it just for the paycheck and we don’t blame her. Especially when she had to sit through a scene where Seth goes on and on about how old she is, although fortunately for her, he still thinks she’s hot. We hope the paycheck was considerable.

On marriage: “I think a lot of people are married to people that they’re not romantic with any more. I just didn’t ever marry anybody that I then had to get divorced from. We break up. We move on.”

On working with ex, Justin Timberlake: “We’re good at being funny together. We know how to do that. That’s easy.”

On her outlook on life: “I’ve gotten less cynical. When I was in my twenties I was not very happy. But I’m a realist. I see things how they are and it’s hard to pretend that they’re anything different.”

It’s a great picture of her on the cover. She always did give good face (when she’s not mugging for the camera).

 

It’s the subscriber cover that really threw us:

 

Because nothing says “Power Player” like flashing your panties, amirite?  We’re not being prudes here; we’re just wondering what the point was.


[Photo Credit: Jan Welters, elleuk.com]

Tags: , ,

  • Anonymous

    You know how there’re the ones trigger irrational feelings of annoyance (like you guys with Reese Witherspoon, me with Amy Adams and ScarJo), and then there are the ones that evoke no reaction whatsoever other than “why is she (or he) even famous?” For me, Diaz is in that latter category.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jessica-TallGirl-Freeman/1043623567 Jessica TallGirl Freeman

      Agreed!

    • Hannah

      I agree; I’ve never understood her appeal. I don’t think she’s very talented at all, and not especially interesting. The only one of her movies I’ve really enjoyed in In Her Shoes, and that was mostly because Toni Collette is fabulous.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4IM6TWHKNNTL2BAXHKFNEYR6CU Irene

        I’m certainly not super into her but I did think she was impressive in Being John Malkovich, mostly in how unrecognizable she is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jessica-TallGirl-Freeman/1043623567 Jessica TallGirl Freeman

    I actually agree with her statements though I can’t really appreciate her as an actress. The subscriber cover is really wacky. Really.

    • Mac

      It’s nuts! Every limb is chopped off, especially the fingers, that’s a crime. Forget lady parts….

  • http://twitter.com/1carmelita 1carmelita

    I can’t even tell it’s her on the second cover. Why have someone on the cover and then make her so generic looking? She looks great on the first one.

    • Lisa

      I know, it makes zero sense. And I feel bad for her, I do like her to an extent. That second one is just a terrible cover.

  • P.R.

    !! The subscriber cover is gorgeous! It reminds me a lot of the dance concerts I’ve been to. It’s common to see dancers in that kind of thing, and it really isn’t sexual, it’s about showing the body so you can see it bend in motion. I expected something much worse when you said “showing her panties.” The first cover is so standard– we’ve seen that pose a million times on covers. So demure and cute! That seems less empowering somehow. But I believe “power player” on the second– she looks strong and tough, as well as beautiful. It’s not a cover whose sole purpose is beauty or cute or sexy. And the fact that I love it is saying something because I don’t like Cameron Diaz. Sure, they could have done it differently so her “panties” weren’t showing, and maybe that would have worked better, who knows, but I love the pose, and I love how she does feel like a real presence in the 2nd, not just a cardboard cutout.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IHWCJIMARF4OOW6PQZQS3RFOOA JillK

      What a great perspective. Totally changed my initial reaction based on this explanation. Thanks for your insight!

  • madam wks

    i am woman see me spread um…..

  • Deanadolar

    Sorry darlings, but I’m not digging your new layout. It’s too elongated, too busy (the dates could be MUCH smaller), and annoying to have the page fade out when I’m moving the mouse around. Plus all this rigamarole with posting. I imagine you wanted the site to go from plain and simple to simple and elegant. Instead, it’s kind of like the sparkly hooker dresses at the bar with Don and Layne: a bit loud and a little cheap looking. Sorry. Still love you, though.

  • Deanadolar

    Sorry darlings, but I’m not digging your new layout. It’s too elongated, too busy (the dates could be MUCH smaller), and annoying to have the page fade out when I’m moving the mouse around. Plus all this rigamarole with posting. I imagine you wanted the site to go from plain and simple to simple and elegant. Instead, it’s kind of like the sparkly hooker dresses at the bar with Don and Layne: a bit loud and a little cheap looking. Sorry. Still love you, though.

    • marciekr

      Totally disagree with you. I love the new layout.

      • Anonymous

        I’m with you.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah I don’t like it either. The old site was no work of art but I miss it like a worn teddy bear – It was simple, endearing, and cozy…the soft blue was easy on the eyes. The orange top with the cartoon TLO was endearing. This site is overpowering the boys’ personality. It’s grey, stilted, “hard” looking. I know you guys worked hard on it but this is almost trying too hard.

      I don’t feel comfortable here like I did at the old site…I don’t visit like I used to. Maybe if they had kept the same color scheme as the previous site… and general feel.

    • http://profiles.google.com/cbueno.sanders Carla Bueno-Sanders

      The fade-out! I’m wish you on that one. Please, no fancy fadeouts just for a slightly longer excerpt of text. It’s bad enough when someone does it on their Tumblr. :C

      The comments, though, WHEW! Thank god for Disqus and being able to actually make THREADS.

  • Judy_J

    Not a fan of the crotch shot cover.

  • LindsayGoon

    Actually, I think that’s a bathing suit on the bottom, which makes it not as bothersome!

  • Anonymous

    in the subscriber pic the face makes the woman look like a younger Heidi or a skinnier Elizabeth Banks, but does NOT look like Cameron Diaz.

    I prefer #1 also.

  • Glammy

    Whoa, not only is cover number two sort of a spread-leg crotch shot–the center of the cover is that crotch? WTF?

    Anyway, I like Diaz as an actress–she has that genuine star charisma–but lately she’s sounded sort of desperate and cougar-ish in her interviews. She’s not a bad actress, I’d like to see her mature a bit.

  • Anonymous

    Eryuck. That subscriber cover is SO blown out. Otherwise I might like it if I could see it.
    She was always a better model than an actress, that’s for damn sure.

  • Anonymous

    “Tlo said: Poor Cameron seemed to be in it just for the paycheck and we don’t blame her.”

    I watched a bio of Steve Martin once where one of his friends said that there were some pictures he did just so he could buy Hoppers (and he has a couple of iconic ones). He’s actually one of the top art collectors in the country. If I’m not mistaken, Cameron collects art as well. So there you have it.

    As for the covers, and the conversation in the other thread, where someone said that there aren’t more black women on covers because they don’t sell: Well, covers like that second one of Cameron don’t sell either. That’s why it’s on the subscriber cover.

    –GothamTomato
    gothamtomato.etsy.com

  • Verena

    I find the subscriber cover really interesting. The smoulder-over-my-shoulder thing is tired at this point and should be reserved for boring people, like the Glee cast.

    One thing about Cameron, tho, in reference to her quotes. She fronts like she’s that cool girl but I’m not buying it (anymore). Look at how she adores ARod in photos. Gross! She’s a stage-5 clinger despite everything she says, mark my words.


    verenahafner.wordpress.com

  • MilaXX

    Boy they went full on hoochie with the subscriber cover didn’t they. I wanna see faces on my magazine covers, not the fine china no matter how limber and in shape the subject may be.

  • andyleigh

    I don’t know. I don’t think I like either of them. In the one on top, she’s just so colorless and washed out. I’ve never thought she was attractive at all or even interesting to look at, so I don’t feel the “come hither” look works all that well. The bottom one is just odd. Without the identifying text I wouldn’t know who she was. And it still doesn’t explain what the heck she’s doing. I’m going with two thumbs down on this.

  • Nancy lee

    I like both of them because they don’t show her face. I really can’t stand her smile, or whatever it is that she does. I agree – I don’t get what she is famous for. At all.

  • FlamingJune

    Honestly… I was in the check out line the other day, and was simply repulsed by all the blemish/wrinkle free faces on all the airbrushed perfect bodies. This is not Cameron Diaz. It is a computer generated representation of her.

  • StL K

    I am usually the first to complain about how magazines only run slutty photos of most actresses, but the full-body cover I actually like–it looks much more like dance photography and I think is more “empowered” than the “freshly-f*cked” headshot of the first cover.

  • Guest

    I guess her power comes from her crotch.

  • meow kitten

    Very off topic, but a follow up on the glitches I was having using IE for the new site (kept getting a “script problem” message and super slow loads)–all appears well, so gracias to whomever did the behind the scenes work. Loving the new format. Ya’ll are awesome.

    • Momzilla

      Yyyyyesssss, the script problem and slow loading have been solved!

  • http://profiles.google.com/susanvmayer Susan Mayer

    Bottom cover looks like a swimsuit.

  • Anonymous

    In her interview Cameron would like to thank her ladyscaper for making her so tamed downtown…

    Not a fan of the crotchtastic cover.

  • Anonymous

    In her interview Cameron would like to thank her ladyscaper for making her so tamed downtown…

    Not a fan of the crotchtastic cover.

  • Shortpplfedup

    the first cover is cutesy hollywood bs, the second cover is art. seriously, go take a look at some dance photography, it will change your mind about the cover.

    • jcw

      I’m with you on this one… she looks strong and beautiful on the second cover, and typical on the first.

      • Anonymous

        Mhmmm, the first one is completely generic. The second one is kind of artsy.

  • Anonymous

    I’m with Brooklyn Bomber, I don’t understand our need for Cameron Diaz. .

    But to answer TLo’s question, the point of the crotch-shot is: ‘Hey everyone, look at my panties, I’m not 25 anymore but I’ve still got it right? Cause I am showing you my panties. And I want you to love me. And did you see my panties? Stop looking at Scarlett Johannson and look at me – and my panties. Panties!!’

  • http://phantomminuet.blogspot.com/ MinAgain

    She’s another one that I can comfortably ignore.

  • Anonymous

    I love Cameron..she always makes me smile/laugh. Really cute in the 1st pic, but yes, that squat/plie’ in the 2nd looks kinda ridiculous in a ‘look at my cooch’ kinda way…

  • Momzilla

    This just reminds us that the Elle UK editors can run stupid photos of famous white women just as easily as Vogue Italia can run stupid photos of not-famous black women. We cannot expect fashion magazines to frame our dialogue on race — they can hardly frame our dialogue on fashion.

  • Glenn

    Cameron was the token love interest, if Britt or kato had any real interest in her. You know that in the middle of that crime fighting , the Green hornet and Kato fell in love and/or are boning.

    • http://profiles.google.com/cbueno.sanders Carla Bueno-Sanders

      Assuming Kato was drunk, I mean… Seth Rogen’s Hornet was an obnoxious rich white boy. It’d be a pity fuck, let’s be honest.

      derp derp

  • Figgy

    I think the second cover is secretly an advertisement for her waxer.

  • roxierider

    I quite like the subscriber cover. I don’t actually think they look much like panties (I like the theory that it’s a bathing suit–that makes sense). It’s really kinetic. When I first saw it I thought it was all about her gams, not her ladybits. I mean, of course it’s always about the ladybits, too, on these covers, but this reads more like “I’m not going to bother covering up when I’m dancing” than “oops, my bottoms fell off!”

  • Anonymous

    Okay now see I didn’t think of them as panties when I first saw that cover. In my head it was a really short shorts thing but now that you’ve said it I can’t get rid of the picture and it is a rather trashy looking image.

  • Carrie

    I don’t mind the panties in the second cover. What drives me nuts is the crooked text. Is this their way of suggesting she’s pushing boundaries by shoving the cover askew? Maybe that’s her power.

  • http://profiles.google.com/mochizukisan kyasarin mochizuki

    I believe the subscriber cover is to illustrate how she has been keeping up the landscaping, yet manages to continue to do so without getting those annoying little bumps like some gross mortal female would.

    That’s the only possible reason.

  • http://profiles.google.com/mochizukisan kyasarin mochizuki

    I believe the subscriber cover is to illustrate how she has been keeping up the landscaping, yet manages to continue to do so without getting those annoying little bumps like some gross mortal female would.

    That’s the only possible reason.