MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

What The HELL Has GQ Done To Channing Tatum?

Unless this very handsome 32-year-old dropped by the plastic surgeon and asked for “The Joan Rivers with Balls,” I would have to make this GQ cover a leading candidate for Worst Airbrushing Of The Young Century.

Or maybe they couldn’t get Mr. Tatum and photographed his figure at Madame Tussaud’s.

6 Responses to “What The HELL Has GQ Done To Channing Tatum?”

  1. The Pope says:

    His head is far too big for his torso. He looks like some sort of oversized/undersized mannequin. Spooooky.

  2. anghus says:

    Awful work. In the current tailspin print media is in, it doesn’t surprise me to see the quality of work going to shit.

  3. christian says:

    Marketing folk think that MAD MEN’s popularity means they don’t suck.

  4. djk813 says:

    Are you sure this isn’t Mad Magazine? It looks like Alfred E. Newman as Channing Tatum.

  5. samguy says:

    WTF? He looks like one of the queens that I see at my gym who I feel so sorry for because it’s obvious that they’re getting work done when it’s way too early or even unwarranted. Hopefully this is the work of some photo editor and not how he really looked at the shoot.

    Good catch, DP!

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

DEADLINE: How does a visualist feel about people watching your films on a phone or VOD?
REFN: It depends on what kind of movie you make. We had great success with Only God Forgives on multiple platforms in the U.S. Young people will decide how they see it, when they want to see it. Don’t try to fight it. Embrace it. That’s a wonderful opportunity. We’re at the most exciting time since the invention of the wheel, in terms of creativity because distribution and accessibility have changed everything. A camera is still a camera whether it’s digital or not; there’s still sound; an actor is an actor. Ninety-nine percent of what you do is going to be seen on a smart phone – I know this is the greatest thing ever made because it allows people to choose, watching what you do on this format or go into a theater and see it on a screen. That means more people than ever will see what I do, which is personally satisfying in terms of vanity. But you have to be able to adapt, to accept things in different order and length than we’re used to. We are in a very, very exciting time.
~ Nic Refn to Jen Yamato

DEADLINE: You mention Tarantino, who with Christopher Nolan and a few other giants, saved film stock from extinction. To him, showing a digital film in a theater is the equivalent of watching TV in public. Make an argument for why digital is a good film making canvas.
REFN: Costwise, it’s a very effective way for young people to start making movies. You can make your movie on an iPhone. It’s wonderful seeing how my own children use technology to enhance creativity. For me it’s a wonderful canvas. Sure, I love grain in film. I love celluloid. But I also like creativity. I like crayons, I like pencils, I like paint. It’s all relative. Technology is more inclusive. A hundred years ago when film was invented, it was an elitist club. Very few people got to make it, very few people controlled it and very few people owned it. A hundred years later, storytelling through images is everyone’s domain. It’s ultimate capitalism. There are no rules, and no barriers and no Hays Code. Where does this go in another hundred years? I don’t know but I would love to see it.
~ Nic Refn To Jen Yamato