Hannah Montana Topless In Vanity Fair

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
You can't say no to Annie? I think you can-her parents were at the photo shoot. She's 15-and obviously Vanity Fair readership isn't the Hannah Montana fan base. So why would adults be interested in a picture like that, and wouldn't that be creepy? :slant: Who here would want their 15 year old daughter looking like that in a magazine?

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/miley200806

cuar02_miley0806.jpg


NY Times

April 28, 2008
Revealing Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise
By BROOKS BARNES

LOS ANGELES — Fifteen years old, topless and wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet in the June issue of Vanity Fair. Did Miley Cyrus, with the help of a controversy-courting magazine, just deliver a blow to the Walt Disney Company’s billion-dollar “Hannah Montana” franchise?

Some parents reacted with outrage over the weekend when the television program “Entertainment Tonight” began showing commercials promoting a scoop: Ms. Cyrus, the star of the wholesome Disney Channel blockbuster “Hannah Montana,” had posed topless, albeit with her chest covered, for the Vanity Fair photographer, Annie Leibovitz.

Screen grabs of the photo quickly popped up online, sparking a blogosphere debate. “Bonfire anyone?” wrote Lin Burress on her marriage and parenting blog, Telling It Like It Is, referring to the mountain of Hannah Montana retail items — makeup, shoes, clothes — in the marketplace. “Parents should be extremely concerned,” Ms. Burress said in an interview. “Very young girls look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model.”

It is doubtful that one photograph — especially one that is tame in the context of an Internet awash in nude photographs of other starlets — could dent the Hannah Montana machine, said several Wall Street analysts. Retail sales for the franchise are expected to total about $1 billion in 2008. A motion picture is in the works for 2009 and Ms. Cyrus signed a seven-figure book deal with the Disney Book Group last week.

But keeping a teenage entertainment franchise on track in an age when stars are monitored around the clock by bloggers and paparazzi is extremely difficult, even for a company with the experience of Disney. Executives are constantly battling to keep minor slipups from growing into full-blown controversies.

Last week, the public relations problem du jour was a green bra; photos online showing Ms. Cyrus pulling away her tank top to flash her underwear.

Ms. Cyrus and the “Hannah Montana” series have been championed as one of the few entertainment sanctuaries for children, complicating matters. Last month, Ms. Cyrus was chosen favorite television actress at Nickelodeon’s “Kids’ Choice Awards.”

More than 3 million viewers regularly watch “Hannah Montana,” most of them age 6 to 14.

Media outlets, in particular the rabid celebrity-focused tabloids, have been pushing to capture new angles of the ubiquitous Ms. Cyrus. After popping up everywhere from the Academy Awards to “American Idol” in recent months, the only photos of her that are assured of selling are controversial ones.

A Disney spokeswoman, Patti McTeague, faulted Vanity Fair for the photo. “Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines,” she said.

The article, written by Bruce Handy, seems to support that claim, quoting Ms. Cyrus as saying, “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.” She also said of the photo, “I think it’s really artsy. It wasn’t in a skanky way.”

Ms. Cyrus had a different view in a prepared statement released on Sunday:

“I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.”

Beth Kseniak, a spokeswoman for both Vanity Fair magazine and Ms. Leibovitz said, “Miley’s parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley.”

At the very least, Ms. Cyrus and her advisers do not seem to be on the same page as Disney. The company learned of the photo only when “Entertainment Tonight” started showing its promos.

Last week, Gary Marsh, the president of entertainment for Disney Channel Worldwide, was quoted in Portfolio magazine saying, “For Miley Cyrus to be a ‘good girl’ is now a business decision for her. Parents have invested in her a godliness. If she violates that trust, she won’t get it back.”
 
Last edited:
Its a tasteful picture, but I could understand why parents of very young children would be concerned that their child's role model may be breaking away from her "good girl" image. Young kids don't always have descent role models (Britney Spears for example, when she first started with that music video), so if I were a parent I'd wonder how far Miley would be going. But then again, the photo is in good taste and not vulgar, so I wouldn't also be disturbed that my five year old looks up to Miley, and I'd also take her to see "Hannah Montana" the movie.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
You can't say no to Annie? I think you can-her parents were at the photo shoot. She's 15-and obviously Vanity Fair readership isn't the Hannah Montana fan base. So why would adults be interested in a picture like that, and wouldn't that be creepy? :slant: Who here would want their 15 year old daughter looking like that in a magazine?


Yeah, I've seen videos of Annie Leibovitz photographing and she is not too friendly. But then again, why did the parents allow that? If that were me posing like that, my dad would've grabbed me and storm out of the photo shoot. Sounds like the parents are are not too assertive at the times when they should be.
 
I don't think the photo is vulgar either, but I still don't think it's appropriate for a 15 year old girl in a magazine. I guess they have to keep pushing the envelope-the magazine and the parents.

It's clear from the behind the scenes feature on the VF web site that she's posed in the sheet-so what did they think, that it would just be a shot of her face?

If she's a role model to kids/teens, I would want a 15 year old to be able to assert herself enough to say no to a picture like that.
 
Like I said, it does make you wonder what kind of parents Miley has -- are they weird free spirits, passive, or is Miley herself trying to break away from her good girl image and her parents are with her on it.

And I also take back what I said about not being disturbed with Miley being a role model if I were to have young kids. I would be disturbed. Even though the pic is in good taste, it is not appropriate for a young girl to see. She's seeing her role model posing suggestively and she may get the wrong idea on how a girl should be.
 
This is nowhere near as disturbing as the last picture I saw in Vanity Fair

cusl01-hitchens0710.jpg


Christopher Hitchens topless

:grumpy:
 
this is silly and stupid


so I imagine it will be the top of news cycles for days and days


the sanctimonious will have their field day
 
I love Annie's work, but for me the bottom line is that this is a child and as a child she should not be photographed topless, nor should any magazine be printing it. Shame on everyone. Someone (an adult) should have stepped in for her stopped it somewhere along the way.
 
Last edited:
Liesje said:
I love Annie's work, but for me the bottom line is that this is a child and as a child she should not be photographed topless, nor should any magazine be printing it. Shame on everyone. Someone (an adult should have stopped it somewhere along the way.

I agree, and I hardly think it's "sanctimonious" to be opposed to the sexualization of kids, and/or to discuss it. No one's going off the deep end about it, it's merely one example of a larger issue. Her parents have always been adamant about how she is raised and what they will not let her do, so it makes me wonder. I don't understand why parents don't have final legal photo approval before a magazine can publish any and all photos of a 15 year old. As far as I know she's not an emancipated minor.

She is topless, no top on. Legally they can't show the breasts, I would imagine. That would be child pornography.
 
Last edited:
^ Exactly. I'm not even going to get into sexualizing of children and bla bla bla. She is a child, a minor, that is a fact. As a minor, she should not have to be in this position of defending herself. It never should have happened.
 
Famed photographer Annie Leibovitz is speaking out about her controversial, semi-topless Miley Cyrus photos she shot for Vanity Fair.

“I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted," she said in a statement. "Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together, and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it.

"The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.”

The 15-year-old issued a statement saying she was "embarrassed" over the photos and apologized to her fans.

The Disney Channel claims the magazine "manipulated" her, but a Vanity Fair rep says, "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley."
 
that photo is creepy

it's not downright slutty, but there is definitely a sexual element to it, and thats really not right.
 
Someone posted this comment on the ABC News site, some people are having some "issues" with those pictures too.

The photo of this girl bare-back in a sheet is "artsy". The photo I have a problem with is the incestuous display of her and her father. Good grief! What were they thinking? The man is wearing a wife-beater and has his daughter spralled across his crotch. Totally inappropriate at ANY age.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
The photo of this girl bare-back in a sheet is "artsy".

this is correct

bare- back
or

backless

I could post quite a few pictures of this girl in backless dresses, outfits

it really is not topless

if anyone bought a "topless magazine" and got a bunch of pictures like that one they would demand a refund


The photo I have a problem with is the incestuous display of her and her father. Good grief! What were they thinking? The man is wearing a wife-beater and has his daughter spralled across his crotch. Totally inappropriate at ANY age. [/B]

this person is silly

the whole "Hannah/Miley" phenomena is based on provocative outfits and poses

again, anyone could post dozens of pictures of her at many ages dressed in "sexy" outfits
 
I'm sure they knew exactly what kind of reaction they would get by doing this photo shoot. Did they think they needed more publicity? Are the masses not talking enough about her this week?

That being said, I have to say that's a VERY unflattering picture of the poor girl. She looks like death warmed over.
 
deep said:
the title of this thread is completely bogus

Agreed.

Topless? Nope.

And the girl's name is Miley Cyrus, not Hannah Montana. Sorry, but that bugs me a little bit in the thread title.

And, yes, this is tame and not a big deal at all.

And, yes, that is an unflattering picture of her.
 
Wow, I just realized that was my first ever post in FYM.

And I came off like an ass.

Hello, FYM. Nice to meet you, anyway. :wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom