UPDATED: Aniston Naked on the Cover of GQ? Why Naked?

UPDATE: Well, looking at the reaction to this, I guess I have to explain myself a little. I just think it reeks of desperation. I get that she's selling a film, and it's a film with Owen Wilson who still doesn't seem to wanna do interviews without a buffer (her), but this to me looks like the equivalent of streaking the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade with a banner behind that says, "See My Movie!"

I don't really care about who's naked or almost naked where, that's why I visit this section of Marc Harshbarger's blog every day (he's one of the blogs on the Widgetbox LGBT channel, btw, in the widget in my left hand column).

This doesn't sell the movie. It just doesn't sell the movie.

---

Can someone tell me why?

Because I don't see the bridge between her being naked on the cover of GW (right) and the movie she's promoting, Marley & Me. Is it because the dog is naked for most of the movie?

I just don't understand. I remember reading unsubstantiated remarks from someone in her past where they claim she talked about having to be "fuckable" to be a movie/TV star, and I guess being on the cover of GQ looking like this reminds people (guys) that she is.

I would always suggest otherwise. The naked thing is what women who need to get on a magazine cover do. Jen isn't a stranger to mag covers, she gets on them for doing absolutely nothing all the time.

I don't know why Stephen and Kevin Huvane, her main handlers, would recommend this. I betcha they negotiated over every one of the words on the cover pertaining to her.

And I'm not a prudish guy, you know that. But it just makes no sense. Everyone else in GQ is wearing clothes, I betcha. In fact, that's what a lot of the mag is about, isn't it?

Put her in a men's shirt standing at a door way with a cocktail and you've got a winner. The naked with the necktie is too much.

The article, "Is It Just Us, Or Is Jennifer Aniston Getting Hotter?" is at this link.

Comments

[Liz]

1.

I agree, this REEKS!
And the movie will still bomb in my opinion.
She hates the paps and always hides her face or frowns, BUT several weeks ago she dines at the IVY and causes a near riot among the Paps.

[It's Called Nepotism]

2.

Re: Kevin & Stephen Huvane negotiating "over every one of the words on the cover pertaining to her."

Uh, dude...you do know that the editor of GQ is a third Huvane brother, Chris, don't you? Ergo, what is there to negotiate? It's called N-E-P-O-T-I-S-M. And it's not the first time the 3 of them have colluded to give Aniston a big publicity push. They did it in December 2005 by declaring the newly divorced Aniston GQ's first (wo)Man of the Year - where she appeared in nothing more than an open men's shirt with tousled "fuck me" bedroom hair. A title that no one on the planet thought she deserved...except the Huvane brothers. It's virtually the only connection Aniston has in Hollywood and it's her Go-to pitch the way the fastball sustained Clemons' career for over 20 years.

Until this latest round of "Look at my bod not my face" no one has bothered calling Aniston on her continued reliance on piggy-backing her PR to Jolie & Pitt. It's not just that she's promoting a movie, it's that she herself refuses to let the "insane" Bermuda Triangle" die because it, like getting naked on GQ, is what keeps her relevant and in the gossip news. Lord knows it sure as hell isn't those ridiculously trite romcoms she keeps foisting on the public. If ever an "actress" needed to disappear from public view and privately re-invent herself - it's Jennifer Aniston. Watching her machinations to stay relevant and/or one-up Jolie & Pitt used to be mildly amusing. Now it's just pathetic and embarrassing.