As you all might imagine, this photo shoot isn't quite as 'explicit' as the BBC Buffy website would like us to think. It's actually done in hommage to the famous American pin-up artist Gil Elvgren, and shot with photographer James White. He collabrorated with Gellar on the horror hommage published in Entertainment Weekly a short while back. The fact that this latest photo shoot appears in Esquire does increase the tackiness quota on some levels, but that aside I don't think there is anything here of great interest.

For myself, apart from the knowledge of the source material, the pictures are distinctly uninteresting. However, they have already come to the attention of the ever reliable British tabloids and been roundly criticised, ensuring additional publicity, which is probably the point of the exercise.

alien lanes | November 15, 22:11 CET

I bought the issue at the weekend, her pics are pretty tasteful good girl art. It's fun, fluffy stuff. Not much to write home about.

Simon | November 15, 22:39 CET

dashboardprophet: on what grounds were the pics criticized? Not that the tabloids have ever needed a reason to carp, but I'm just wondering . . .

Personally I like the pics, largely because they're *fluffy* in a way that SMG has not really ever done before. Less cool and aloof, more fun and frolic-y. Plus, she looks pretty darn good in them. Have ta say, though, the Elvgren originals that she and the photog were emulating were quite a bit more risque than these . . .

SoddingNancyTribe | November 15, 23:25 CET

SNT, that bastion of good taste The Sun informed us that, "In Buffy she looked effortlessly sexy and sassy without taking her clothes off. In these latest pictures she looks cheap and uncomfortable. I honestly thought she was better than that." They were quickly followed by The Mirror, another 'newspaper' of impeccable morals. That these opinions emanate from those particular tabloids means that no comment really needs to be made. The fact that Gellar is actually coming to the attention of the British tabloid press simply suggests that she is becoming genuinely famous.

As you say, the Gil Elvgren illustrations that inspired these (harmless) pictures are somewhat more risque.

alien lanes | November 15, 23:41 CET

Thanks for the info, dashboardproph!

It's just too hi-larious to have The Sun tell us that a woman "taking her clothes off" makes her look cheap and uncomfortable, and that she is "better than that." Meaning that each of the young women taking their tops off on Page 3 of, um, The Sun for the last 30 years are cheap and nasty? Sorry, really too obvious to belabor the point (and ignoring your "no comment" advice), but sometimes we've just gotta call them on their rank and putrid hypocrisy.

SoddingNancyTribe | November 16, 02:13 CET

I really like those pictures. I love the pin-up poses.

Angel TheVampire | November 16, 04:39 CET

Can anyone direct me where I might be able to find these pics? Thanks!

Phoenixstear | November 16, 04:52 CET

Wasn't there a thread on this site at one time about these pictures? I'm pretty sure I saw these because the premise sounds familiar. Maybe it was a link from Buffy.nu or something.

Okay, I just went and did a quick check on Buffy.nu and they said the pictures were removed because, and I quote, "These pictures have been removed after a demand from Esquire UK Magazine". They then said they could be found at "sarahmichellegellarfan.com" but I got an error message there so I bet they were told to take them down too. Can't say I blame them, I'd be annoyed too if I was trying to sell a magazine and people are posting the pictures and articles for free on the net.

Firefly Flanatic | November 16, 05:05 CET

Well, you can find them
halfway down the page here. Since smgfan.com is pretty scrupulous about not permitting possibly-illegal links, I hope it's OK to link to them. If it's not - sorry!

(added) blwessels: I just checked buffy.nu - they have the pics back up now too (look for a post dated November 12). They took them down originally because they had been leaked and posted there - and at various other SMG sites - before the mag was actually in circulation.

[ edited by SoddingNancyTribe on 2004-11-16 03:13 ]

SoddingNancyTribe | November 16, 05:09 CET

Thanks SNT, I just checked them out and those were the pictures I'd seen before. I thought they were very tastefully done and really nice. I don't see how anyone could think she looks "cheap and uncomfortable" at all.

Firefly Flanatic | November 16, 07:38 CET

I think they are cute and cheesy. But I don't get which one is the cheerleader one...

pezwitch | November 16, 09:25 CET

Wasn't there a thread on this site at one time about these pictures?
Yes, there definitely was. I remember going to a Buffy.nu link or somewhere else that had posted them, from Whedonesque, and seeing these pics a number of weeks ago. It was either a link, or else the photos were discussed in a thread about a related topic. Maybe that was back when they were posted ahead of time, before the issue was in circulation?

acp | November 16, 10:02 CET

November - 'its a ritual sacrifice with pie' is all I can hear!

catalyst2 | November 16, 12:40 CET

This must fall under the heading of 'all publicity is good publicity when you are marketing a movie'.
I think she has done better pictures in other magazines, I'm quite partial to the EW 'horror' pictures myself, even though there is a bit of typecasting there.

jpr | November 16, 14:13 CET

Wasn't there a thread on this site at one time about these pictures?
Yes there was, I posted it, but it was removed by Simon because, as SNT pointed out, they were released before that issue of Esquire was out and so they were threatening legal action.

Paul_Rocks | November 16, 16:18 CET

I thought the shoot was very cute - nothing very risque by today's standards with the exception perhaps of the tennis one, where she's sitting on the ground. I too thought it was a fresh look at SMG and am glad to see her developing a 'collaborative' (what does that mean?) relationship with a photographer. SMG will never have the mannequin-esqe qualities of a Nicole Kidman, but it is obvious that you need to be on the pages of magazines in order to keep a high profile in H-wood. As she is not the type to be seen at every party and premiere, the work she is doing with James White should be very good for her.

WWBD | November 16, 18:29 CET

I like her december comments. I think the only people that would find that cocky are people who haven't given the show a chance, which was me six months ago. I'm glad she's proud of Buffy. Who wouldn't be! And I really do think Buffy is the greatest television show ever (not really surprising!).

buffbuff | November 16, 21:34 CET