Reminder: The photos we show are not the only ones in contention; they’re just illustrative. It’s body of work, y’all, with anything worn from post-Oscars 2016 through the Oscars this year. Polls close after 24 hours, and the other half of each bracket will be contested on Friday. Happy voting!
(2) Nicole Kidman vs. (15) Chanel Iman
What do these two have in common? Well, they’re both tall and genetically gifted. Nicole Kidman has become iconic in the world of fashion, and Chanel Iman is named after two people that are iconic in the world of fashion. Seems like an appropriate matchup, although it remains to be seen if the model can take down the megastar. Let’s start with Chanel Iman, shall we? You’ve seen the dress in the header on this post, but perhaps you’ve forgotten that the back is cracked out. Literally.
That’s… alarming. But Nicole, though she managed to keep that much covered, debuted a meshy monstrosity of her own this year thanks to the Rodarte ladies.
This is just… even Keith seems confused. I feel like, Chanel Iman is a young model and you get what you get, but isn’t Nicole freaking Kidman over this yet? It’s a crotch apron over lace. And not even NICE lace.
Chanel Iman also busted out a dress with dangerous crotch potential and another with belly button antics ahoy; for her part, Nicole went with that unfortunate ocean-wave McQueen that had the illusion of crotch, and another that’s riding the S.S. Sideboob.
This isn’t an ENTIRELY naked battle, though. There’s Nic’s parrot dress, if you were among those that hated it. And a very strange necktie choice. A really bizarre high-necked ribbon-candy frock whose potential was undone by the wrong shoes. She also, ill-advisedly, went back to the Rodarte.
Chanel Iman went with a form of a cape, too.
She also did a ruffly, peasant-y look, which of course sat way too low on her:
And then there’s this lacy blue thing with safety-pin shoes:
That’s… not great. But then again, neither was this:
This is very… Typical Young Model meets Typical Kardashian.
And this… well, this is Gucci.
It has not been a good year for that label, and not even Nicole Kidman’s occasional magic touch can help that.
At first, I was dismayed that we couldn’t use some of our Tove Lo photos where she’s essentially wearing nipple tape, because she’s performing. But then I realized she wore totally different nipple-tape outfits on the red carpet. Success:
There is something both futile and amusing in the idea of nipple tape and see-through camouflage all rolled into one outfit. She digs other patterns with it, too:
But more importantly, what are those totems hanging from her belt? Are they tiny replica shoes of all the dolls she once killed?
Tove Lo also really, really likes her sheers to be both orange, and totally unique:
It’s true that I’ve never seen a gown make it look like the wearer has an elephant’s trunk growing out of her ovaries. And speaking of, I may never get ovary this:
Say fallop to her little friends.
Sarah Jessica Parker has never worn reproductive organs, it’s true. So this may put her at a slight disadvantage. But if a see-through garment is what you want, she’s done it, in her own way:
That’s Valentino, and I believe they made it from a bunch of all-weather floor mats from Pep Boys. What a sad waste of a good shoe. As was this:
I am thoroughly befuddled as to what ANY of that even is, other than a faulty pirate costume. SJP does love to be costumey, though — take this, in which she looks like the neighborhood eccentric who runs a fortune-telling booth at the school carnival each year.
Or here, where she’s basically Fancy Hamilton.
Obviously, they both have commitment to a theme. It’s just that Tove Lo’s theme is a lot nakeder, and SJP’s is Friendly Nutcake. It’s a classic clash of tackier fuggery versus the more high-fashion variety. Which is worse? That lies in the heart of each voter.
(6) Dakota Johnson vs. (11) Bebe Rexha
Dakota will be tough to take down, on account of her (paid? GOD I HOPE SO, because she should reap SOME benefit) devotion to Gucci in a year when that line rarely did right by its famous faces. Case in point:
I can see why the star of Fifty Shades Etc. would want to wear something more modest, given how much of her is on display in the movie, but there is so MUCH going on here. It’s primmer than prim, fussier than fussy. And who could forget this:
Those are actual museum pieces of jewelry, and they are being wasted on a ghastly nightie that looks yellowed with despair.
And that’s from the front row of the Gucci fashion show. Whatever is under the jacket MIGHT be reasonable, but I cannot get past it. What decade is this, again?
But lest you blame Gucci alone for her candidacy, Dakota showed she can pick out a Dior that’s just as bad:
This says, to me, “Please cancel the third movie.”
And this says, “I badly need someone to take me shopping, and also lock up my devices so I can’t buy stuff on a whim at 3 a.m.”
Bebe Rexha is new to the proceedings, and as such, we don’t have a ton of stuff on her in the archives. But we can make up for that now.
I wonder if she thinks she’s filling some kind of Britney void, at least visually.
Too bad she’s not up against Sarah Jessica Parker, because SJP might actually enjoy the period corset Bebe wrapped around that gnawed-off t-shirt. I feel like she’d would support anything that looked like it was stolen — er, borrowed — from a theater’s costume closet.
I don’t know how to explain that one, though. I will note that Bebe is REALLY into over-the-knee boots. In fact, she re-wore the taupe pair to the VMAs, with a tube top (as you do). So she’s… environmentally conscious? But sadly, also a denim criminal. Unfortunately, the outfit in the header isn’t eligible because it was performance-only, which I didn’t realize untill too late. But it’s HEINOUS, and this too-tight jumpsuit is little better.
Oh, child. You WISH that was camouflaging you.
(7) Lea Michele vs. (10) Halsey
It is my sad duty to inform you that Halsey’s yellow belt-shirt is not eligible this year. We’ll have to hope she pins a 2018 campaign to that accessory. However, we are hardly bereft here. Y’all, I JUST saw this outfit — it’s not in our regular subscription — and it’s Emily Ratajkowski levels of WTF. Get ready.
Just FOLD THE POOF UPWARD AND VOILA, YOU ARE CLAD. If I’d seen that when we were seeding, these positions might be reversed.
Halsey had a HIGHLY questionable Grammys run, too. First, there’s a transparent cage over a furry dotted sheer shirt (that was a rough collection of words there), and a sleeve that appears only to be attached to her neck. And then:
That’s gotta be a cousin to Belt Shirt, right? They’re both so shiny. And naked.
Speaking of naked:
Halsey: comin’ in hot to Fug Madness. And lest you argue that, well, we don’t know what happens when Halsey attempts real honest-to-God formalwear, I present this to you:
Beautiful at the start, see-through at the bottom — so, about as we might have anticipated.
Lea is not averse to semi-sheer formalwear either, although this is the more dramatic example:
Nor is she SUPER subtle, either, as you can see here. And here:
That’s not a ruffle; it’s a cry for help.
And this not only looked constricting, but she TOTALLY boned it for herself by rubber-stamping a lousy makeup job. It’s like they felt they had to work REALLY HARD to make her look awake, or something? It’s not always the fashion that causes the downfall, y’all. Although hers isn’t helping.