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 »

“There are critics who see their job as to be on the side of the artist, or in a state of imaginative sympathy or alliance with the artist. I think it’s important for a critic to be populist in the sense that we’re on the side of the public. I think one of the reasons is, frankly, capitalism. Whether you’re talking about restaurants or you’re talking about movies, you’re talking about large-scale commercial enterprises that are trying to sell themselves and market themselves and publicize themselves. A critic is, in a way, offering consumer advice. I think it’s very, very important in a time where everything is commercialized, commodified, and branded, where advertising is constantly bleeding into other forms of discourse, for there to be an independent voice kind of speaking to—and to some extent on behalf of—the public.”
~ A. O. Scott On One Role Of The Critic

“Every night, we’d sit and talk for a long, long time and talk about the process and I knew he was very, very intrigued about what could be happening. Then of course, one of the fascinating things he told me about was how he had readers who were reading for him that never knew it was Stanley Kubrick. So if he heard of a novel, he would send it out to people. I think he did it through newspaper ads at the time. And he would send it out to people and ask for a kind of synopsis or a critique of the novel. And he would read those. And it was done anonymously. But he said there were housewives and there were barristers and all sorts of people doing that. And I thought, yeah, that’s a really good way to open up the possibilities. Because otherwise, you’re randomly looking, walking through a bookstore or an airport. I said, “How many people are doing this?” It was about 30 people.”
~ George Miller’s Conversations With Kubrick