Oh Hell No, Jennifer Hudson
Premise 1: Jennifer Hudson is hot. I think we can all agree that Jennifer Hudson is a beautiful girl. No matter what you thought of her acting or her role in Sex and the City: The Movie, she did look awesome. And curvy. And normal. Here she is at the premiere. Smoking, right?
Premise 2: Jennifer Hudson is talented. She was voted off American Idol three seasons ago, and since then has won an Oscar for a very strong performance in Dreamgirls. And now she’s almost ready to drop her first album, an album that, by all accounts, she has spent a lot of time trying to get absolutely right. So it will probably be a solid, successful album.
Premise 3: This is not what Jennifer Hudson looks like. And although I would prefer to blame her record label, or her cover design artist, or The Man, or anybody else, I have to believe that someone with her kind of power–an Academy Award, a highly anticipated album, a whole lot of talent—could have said, “You know what, no. I am not cool with this.”
So, this looks like one extreme Photoshop makeover. But why? Jennifer looks great the way she is. Do the suits at RCA Records really think she’ll shift more units with her head digitally decapitated and then Franksteined onto some skinny mystery body? And do they really think her fans are unobservant enough to overlook such a radical renovation of her famously full figure?
You know, Effie would not stand for this, and neither should Jennifer. Neither should her fans.
As a huge Idol fan, and a J. Hud fan, I was really interested in this album. But now I’m way more interested in what Jennifer is going to tell her fans about this cover. Aren’t you?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: American Idol, Gossip, Jennifer Hudson, Media, Music, Photoshop, Weight Loss
Email us
I’m more intrigued by Yahoo commenterr DarleneT, who responded:
it’s not polite to talk about anyone. cause one day that person might show you and the world. what she or he can really do. i use to get talked about. but it ain’t nobody business what i did. but it’s gonna shock the entire world.
What will she show me? Who talked about her and what did they say? What in the world did she do? Only it ain’t nobody business what she did. We are left to wonder in vain.
In light of that, Hudson’s ‘chopped album cover seems like pretty small beans.
Oh, how disappointing! From what my husband tells me, American Idol contestants practically sign away their life with the show’s contract. The show basically owns them, their music, and their image, so I wonder how much control Hudson had over this cover image, as well as the CD itself.
“I have to believe that someone with her kind of power–an Academy Award, a highly anticipated album, a whole lot of talent—could have said, “You know what, no. I am not cool with this.””
Sorry, but generally no.
Consider the timeline of when she must have signed her album deal. The movie hadn’t yet come out — and we don’t know whether she was still under terms of her Idol contract (which I’m sure contained rights to her image and its – ahem – presentation) and whether or not that agreement was assigned to J’s company.
Then we have the general maxim that entertainment conglomerates will try to exert as much control over the “exploitation and marketing” of their “product(s)” as they can in order to “maximize the value of the asset”. Don’t forget that generally, these companies are owned by even larger companies (is it GE that has majority control of Warner Brothers now?) and so their ONLY concern is profit maximization (a lot of people who believe that the record industry should “be like it was in the 60s”, when there were some labels that were really about talent — at least until they were acquired — don’t understand the level of focus of emphasis on this) and that maximum profit has to mean maximum control over the “asset”.
I don’t know if you’re a fan or if you follow it, but Prince went through something similar — after he had made hundreds of millions for WB (and he was skinny! :D).
I know that the heart of your protest isn’t really about much of that. But in the current system, she just doesn’t have as much control as you’d think.
I thought that artists did have control over what their album covers would look like, but if she still is under contract through AI, then more than likely she has no power to say anything about her cover.
But what I do find refreshing is that many of the commenters on that blog could care less about her size. Yahoo is notorious for its fat-hating drive-bys.
Bree said: “I thought that artists did have control over what their album covers would look like, but if she still is under contract through AI, then more than likely she has no power to say anything about her cover.”
Not necessarily. Artists may have minimum input to what sort of cover art is used on their albums. It all depends on what their contract states. Some artist, who have had years of experience and have sold millions of records, may have more ability to say “yeah or nay” to their image or how that image is promoted. Just because she won an Oscar, doesn’t mean that she has the “power” because as littlem stated, she probably signed the record contract long before the Oscar win.
This is also similar to book deals. Some authors can say what they would like the cover of their books to look like, and sometimes the publishing company has the final say so, based on what they believe will sell. It is all about the ching-ching!
book deals – yah, I vaguely knew the lady who wrote ‘Big Big Love’ and she had wanted the cover art to be this really charming photograph of several very large people, naked and cuddling and HAPPY. It was a very eye-opening picture for me – at the time the idea of Happy Naked Fat People was mind-boggling.
No naughty bits were visible, the people were all sort of pressed together in an enormous cuddlepile.
However, the publisher put a big NO on the use of this art. They were willing to do a picture of the author, but not Happy Naked Fat People. Who would buy a book with happy naked fat people on it?
I would buy books with happy nakey fat people Emmy! Hehe. But really I’m not all that offended by Jennifer Hudson’s album cover. I assume she had little say in it, but even if she did. Actually, I am more offended that they pulled her waist in so much but left her chest so big. She doesn’t look proportionate any more! I must say I am digging her in that silver premier number, though.
Ah photoshop…if you haven’t seen it, there is a good YouTube video of the photoshopping of a large (and lovely) woman into someone who is much thinner. And they didn’t replace her daughter, just manipulated the image.
Um, okay, I don’t know I wrote “daughter” when I meant “body.” I have post-convention brain.
I’m not sure which is the bigger offense, JHud’s album cover or America Ferrera a la Glamour…
That’s AWFUL. I love JH, though I never watched AI. But her performance in DG was FABULOUS, and that girl has got some great pipes. But I also loved that she was real, and sexy, and herself.
The cover… yuck.
I saw something similar in my inbox today. Unless she’s lost a lot of weight in stategic places, Beth Chapman on “Dog: The Bounty Hunter” seems to have gotten a Photoshop slim-down as well. The A&E website doesn’t show the same image from my e-mail but here’s a link to it:
http://emailnewsletters.aetv.com/p/5/1259/dog_2008_0710_4.jpg
She seems taller as well.
FWIW, the dress she’s wearing only goes up to L [8-10]. I’m a horrible judge of other people’s dress sizes, but that seems small to me, 5% spandex or no 5% spandex.
8-10 is a LARGE now?!? Good-ness!
American Apparel runs very, very small.
I really thought they photoshopped the poor child within an inch of her life. I think the whole album cover says less about her (she prolly doesn’t have much creative control, as already noted) and more about the record industry’s take on what is acceptable and attractive. SMH.
What a shame; she is so lush and sexy. This cover diminishes her, and not just literally.