The latest issue of Wired Magazine features an eye-catching graphic of Jenna Fischer naked and the article, “What We Can Learn from The Office.”
Here’s what the Wired blog says about the cover:
The April cover of WIRED features a package of stories about radical transparency, our notion that the next model of business success is laying your company bare to the world—sharing secrets with your rivals, blogging about ideas as you have them, and copping to fumbles and foibles as you make them. The concept was crisp, but we all struggled with how to portray a pretty complex idea in the three-second visual byte that is the modern magazine cover. If you’re talking about transparency, the obvious metaphor is clear: you’re naked.
So of course, WIRED being WIRED, we wanted a cover that was smart and showy. And as Creative Director I wanted something that hadn’t been done before. We settled on the idea of printing on clear acetate. But it had to be interactive. Now you’re in a business suit—now you’re not.
Then we wrestled with the question of how to best show the real goings on inside the modern American office. How about using “The Office” as a model? And who would we like to see practicing what we’re preaching? Dwight? Ehhh…notsomuch. Of course, Pam. So we called NBC and pitched our idea and Jenna Fischer (thankfully!) liked the idea.
Michael Elins photographed her in Los Angeles in a dingy little studio. And yes, the whole thing is real; we shot it in two parts, Jenna in her business suit and her birthday suit (really). She was a great sport about the whole thing. Funny and endearing.
And no, I don’t have outtakes.
Related: Jenna Fischer naked in Jane magazine
Wow wasn’t expecting that.
god daaaaam Jenna is hot
Wow. Go Jenna :)
I dislike these. They look way too photoshopped and messed with. The pose is kind of odd too.
Are we living in the 1800’s? Jenna looks good and WHO is ANYONE to say she must be the prime and poise PAM???
throw stones elsewhere.
I agree James–she looks like a Kewpie doll. I like the picture of her with the post-its, but the cover looks very photoshopped (could that be the point if the article is for wired magazine–to show the glories of technology)? I also feel like that naked body isn’t hers–those hips seem oddly misformed.
Sorry, I work for a professor who researches eating disorders and body image in the media, so maybe I’m reading too much into this…
Enjoyed the article, though, and these pics are a heck of a lot better than the ones recently released for “The negotiation!”
Screw you guys, this is hot!
i didnt notice the photoshop until someone said something
look at the sleeves too.
either way, jenna is brave and very attractive
JOE your 100% correct! I went and looked and enlarged the picture. Horrible photojob! Even the finger placement on the sign is off on the ‘suited’ picture.
Jenna keep up the great work!
The suit picture is a transparency that goes over the other cover, and when I went to scan the whole thing, the pictures got misaligned. That’s why the “photoshop” seems off in that sense.
Of course there’s no excuse for the rest of the bad photoshopping…
I agree with James…this isn’t the Jenna I love!
Thanks for clearing up about the ‘transparency’ :)
The pictures are great of Jenna!!!
Holy provocative photos irrelevant to the “blurring-the-line-between-fact-and-fiction” article, Batman! Props to Jenna for being such a trooper (okay, a HOT trooper), but, um… that was strange.
It just seems odd to me that an actress of Jenna’s standing would get naked to promote a one page story (if it can be called that, I wonder if it only exists to justify the cover) that really has nothing to do with her.
I agree, Lisa. I don’t usually spend a lot of time thinking about Pam’s hips and boobs (unlike Michael…), neither of those look proportionally correct to be her “assets.”
Professional photographer here. Just as a side note: EVERY photo in EVERY magazine article or ad is photoshopped. NOTHING you see is “real.”
And whomever did the photoshop on these pics should be fired. I’m just sayin’…
Hope we’re not seeing the BritanySpearsification of Jenna.
“At least I didn’t come in a slutty cheerleader outfit. Was that mean?”
Jenna we love you, but not like this.
Come on guys, this isn’t her body.
She is way smaller than that. Her arms aren’t so bulky. Her head looks too small for the body if it were hers. IRL her head is much better proportioned.
I think it’s a great concept, though.
I love the post-it picture of her…
So when will we be seeing JKras’s naked cover shoot?
if you look at the pam with clothes on it looks like they photoshoped the suit on (look closely at her left shoulder). Maybe Michael did the photoshop.
I was shocked when I saw this yesterday lol
Anyways, about the whole misaligned suit.. I seriously think it was done on purpose. It is after all, a technology magazine.
Excuse me, I’m just running out to the nearest newsstand to buy a copy of the April 2007 issue of Wired magazine, for the insightful articles, of course!
All photos are altered to some degree. On the other hand, how much do we really know about someone’s body when we mainly see her in cardigans and knee-length skirts… and more importantly, does it even matter?
I just hope Jenna is getting good advice. Too many times we see “cute and sweet” celebrities go “sexy and slutty” because they feel typecast or want to cash in on their fame.
“Cute and sweet” are very marketable and Jenna is currently the reigning world’s champ in this category.
The Office is going into syndication and Jenna and her husband will be set for life. Just hope she doesn’t go to the Dark Side.
This is the worst photoshop job I’ve ever seen.
I’m going to completely disregard these “photos” because Jenna is not actually naked in the pictures and they are just too silly.
I don’t like this either. I really just don’t think that it’s classy at all. It makes me sad.
i love jenna. with that said, she looks like one of those girls from the stepford wives..bad photoshop…
It’s not photo shop. It’s a transparency cover that opens up to the non-suit photo.
#26 — Yeah, I thought the same thing. The suit definitely looks photoshopped on.
it looks like Jenna’s made out of plastic
#33, #26, others
it’s been noted several times here that the suit is NOT a photoshop, technically. The suit is on a transparency that is laid across the naked picture. During the scan, the transparency was shifted.
now as to if that’s her head photoshopped on someone else’s body…. maybe
maybe she’ll address this in her blog on myspace
Now that the transparency cover controversy has been settled, I’m still not sure why people are so upset about this picture. I see more nudity on cable TV after work than Jenna shows in this photograph. Regardless of whether it’s her or her photoshopped head on another woman’s body, she hasn’t committed a mortal sin. Give the girl a break.
I’m genuinely curious. What about those photos suggests that Jenna is going down a “dark path”?
If she had been wearing a bathing suit, she would have showed more skin than she is showing in that picture.
Wired isn’t a men’s magazine. There is nothing racy or explicit in her photographs.
Its a *business* magazine.
I just don’t get the outrage or disapointment in Jenna.
At all.
yikes.. britney spears? i think some people are overreacting.
Oh, I gotcha. I didn’t realize there was a transparent cover. I need to pay better attention.
I have no issues with the content of the pictures. I think it is smart for Jenna to do things that make people see her outside of buttoned up Pam. She is sexy and smart. There’s no reason she shouldn’t show off her sexy side too.
I’d just like to say I’m not outraged or anything at Jenna. I have no poblem with the content of the pictures, I have a problem with the execution.
Callan (#21) — Well, I’m no Jenna Fischer’s body expert, but, for starters, we do know something of what her arms look like from award shows and events, and the arms in these photos appear to be quite different.
Yeah, seriously.
I would care way more about naked John Krasinski magazine covers.
please please please let some magazine editor read this request
So I don’t get it, did that guy interview the actors from the show in character, or the writers? Some of that wasn’t from any of the episodes I’ve seen (um, all of them…multiple times).
The last and only time I bought wired was because Stephen Colbert was on the cover. I’m still trying to decide whether or not to cross the threshold into complete geekdom by reading a tech magazine.
Man, Rashida Jones likes “sexy nerds” and Jenna Fischer’s in a geeky mag.
Yes, friends, our time has come!
Please excuse me…I am now off to get the latest issue of this ‘Wired’ magazine!
I personally don’t like the pictures because her face is so badly photoshopped/airbrushed (nothing to do with her jacket). What’s so wrong with Jenna’s face that it has to be messed with so much?
I like the rest of the photos, hence, I am not a prude as someone tried to say.
hub huvb hubabbabbabababababba
*drool*
I only have one word….wow!
OK. After much Google Images research (hard at work in the trenches here), I’m revising my statement above. I now think it’s entirely possible that that IS Jenna Fischer from the neck down, albeit with some over-zealous photoshopping. Also, without getting too graphic about it, it appears that whoever’s body it is, she may not be entirely naked under there, i.e., she appears to be wearing some type of “lifting” garment, unless that impression as well is digitally manipulated.
Waa waa wee waa!
she needs to let her hair down.. she looks amazing with it down
Some information about the cover:
Or is this an April Fool’s joke? Hmmm.
Regarding the “plastic” quality of the photos. It looks to be the photographers style.
http://www.michaelelins.com/
Oh wow this photographer has done some great stuff.
I don’t get it, but ok.
Jenna is so beautiful. Even dressed down and plain on the show she’s pretty, but’s she’s like a whole other person when she’s herself, in makeup and trendy clothes, hair done and she’s on talk shows or in mag interviews or something. John looks the same off and on the show, so does BJ, Steve, Paul, Mindy, etc. But Jenna and Rainn look so hot and sexy off the set. Rainn is quite fetching!! Hubba-hubba!!
tanster: Thanks for finding that information. I believe it.
Jenn: Yes, definitely appears to be the way he does these kind of photos.
I dunno, I still don’t think that that’s Jenna’s body under there. It doesn’t look natural. If you compare this pic to the one she did for Jane, you can tell the difference.
Dwigt wrote:
> she needs to let her hair down.. she looks amazing with
> it down
I know! She’s so pretty, but, ugh, it looks lousy pulled across the forehead like that.
Wow, I read her blog on how to make it in Hollywood and I didn’t see the part where it was necessary to whip your clothes off for some geeky magazine. Or do you only do that after you made it in Hollywood? Sorry, I’m in the group that thinks this is sans taste or class.
Well, it’s clear from James T.’s linked photo (#59) that she didn’t whip off ALL her clothing.
Hiya. I’m actually interning at the magazine right now, and while I wasn’t at the shoot or anything, I did hear the Creative Director talk about it. As I remember, they shot her first naked, and then had her put on the business suit and spent a lot of time getting her to align her body just so, so that the clear acetone overlay would match up exactly. It’s the real deal Holyfield, folks, though I couldn’t speak to whether/how much the photo was Photoshopped.
I think you’ll dig the article inside the mag as well, some funny quotes from Michael and Jan.