Jump to content
Bellazon
Patreon/Only Fans Content
Underage Models (Kids - Preteens)

OriginalSin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,988

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by OriginalSin

    Mona Johannesson

    in Female Fashion Models

    Posted

    raises hand :yes:

    and I wanna know how you stole it from the website :shifty:

    haha well I don't know how Pink did it but I snatched them out of my Temporary Internet Files folder like you taught me :woot:

    US Vogue May (or maybe June) 2007

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    ^ I agree for the most part. I think it would be good to get a model on the cover a few times a year, but they don't sell as well. :( Those interested in fashion are more likely to overlook the fact that a celeb they don't like is on the cover b/c most of the issue is fashion-related anyway and that's what they want. But a celeb on the cover reaches out to those people who aren't all that interested in fashion but who are willing to buy a mag with their favorite celeb on the cover. So I think US Vogue thinks it's reaching a bigger audience when they do this. And the results seem to back that up b/c Liya Kebede's cover in 2005 was one of the worst selling issues in recent years. The Sept 2004 Vogue cover with all the models, however, DID sell extremely well, but I think it's harder to tell if that's b/c of the models or b/c it was a Sept issue and those tend to sell better in general. I guess we'll know after this May cover. Hopefully if this sells very well, Anna Wintour will consider making a habit of putting models on the cover at least a few times a year. :)

    Like you, I wish Vogue would be more willing to take risks, but this is a business too I suppose and we have to think of it like that :/

    Oh and I just noticed your other post. No worries about the year, we all make goofs :laugh: :p

    US Vogue May (or maybe June) 2007

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    "Top model" and "supermodel" are practically interchangeable terms, imo. The purpose of the cover was to reveal which girls were going to dominate the fashion world, and to that end there really is no distinction between the two. Bona fide "supermodels" are long gone, so whichever girls nab the top runway shows, ad campaigns and editorials are really the next best thing.

    The inclusion of Coco and Lily is ridiculous no matter how you slice it, because they are both exceedingly unattractive and bad models to boot. I also don't get the appeal of Hilary Rhoda; to me she's just another run-of-the-mill Ralph Lauren model who just happened to make nice with the right photographers.

    I don't care for Freja at all, so it doesn't really matter to me that she didn't make the cover; I'm just surprised that she didn't.

    I respectfully disagree about the terms being interchangeable, but I do agree that bona fide supermodels are long gone. I just feel that the term barely has a place in today's modeling world, which is why I wouldn't use them interchangeably. To me a supermodel has to gain appeal and exposure outside of the industry whereas a top model only has to be successful within the industry. But that is me, and I understand that you have a different opinion on that. :flower:

    But actually, no it's not ridiculous "no matter how I slice it." In fact, if I use what you said: "whichever girls nab the top runway shows, ad campaigns, and editorials are really the next best thing" then people like Coco Rocha HAVE to be on the cover.

    First Coco: for FW07 she did almost 70 shows, she's been in so many editorials lately I've actually lost count, she was on Feb's cover of Vogue Italia with Hilary. She was on another Vogue Italia cover in 2006. She's recenly been on the covers of other magazines such as Vogue Nippon, Numero, i-D, and Time Style & Design (which admittedly isn't an important fashion mag BUT the types of girls who usually get their covers are the popular/top ones - Daria, Gemma, Liya, Isabeli, Doutzen, Du Juan) She's doing Balenciaga, Lanvin, and Christian Lacroix for Spring 2007. She's already got the Dolce & Gabbana campaign lined up for Fall 2007. Her level of attractiveness is a matter of opinion. So is whether or not she's a good model, but obviously the people casting her think has something to offer because she wouldn't be getting so much work otherwise. I don't think there's any question that given all this she currently doing very well and would be considered a top model.

    Now Lily: for FW07 she did about 50 shows (incl all the major ones), she was recently on the cover of i-D mag and was featured in three editorials in that one magazine, Miss Dior Cherie (this is a fragrance campaign which is huge), Dior Cruise, Burberry SS07, recent editorials in Harper's Bazaar, Vogue, Numero, etc.

    And since you mention Hilary, here's what her recent work has looked like: recent Vogue Italia cover, 3 recent US Vogue editorials, editorials in other major mags, Donna Karan SS07, Dolce & Gabbana Cruise, Givenchy SS07, Gucci Cruise, and recently landed an Estee Lauder contract. She was lacking in FW07 shows this season (less than 20) but then again so was Doutzen (not saying Doutzen doesn't deserve to be on this cover, just pointing out that other things, such as long-term cosmetics contracts can balance things out)

    I am not here to debate WHY any of the 10 (or imo 9) girls are successful (because that varies - from actual ability to a photographer's fascination with her to a certain editor-in-chief loving her to a wonderful personality to a designer considering her his muse). I have no desire to change your personal opinions on the any of girls, but given the point that you made, these girls should be on the cover because they have been successful in terms of editorials, campaigns, covers, and runway shows.

    US Vogue May (or maybe June) 2007

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I just hate how safe US vogue has become. Before it used to be about the fashion and now it's just about celebrities and their lives like most people even care what so and so has to say when Star Magazine and People are saying a different thing. This cover is so boring and safe. I mean it's supposed to be like a big issue but it's just really boring. They made way better covers for their so-called celebrities.

    I completely agree with this. US Vogue is boring. Really boring. :| This cover isn't great in terms of artistry or creativity. So far I only like it marginally better than the 2004 cover and that's mostly because all the girls aren't standing in a straight line :|

    Unfortunately, and I reluctantly say this in US Vogue's defense, it is catering to a certain market and everything the magazine seems to stand for reflects that. If America were less celeb-obsessed they would probably feature more models cause those mags would sell better than they do now. Also if America were less conservative (compared with the rest of the West I mean), there would probably be edgier editorials, covers, articles, etc.

    *sigh*

    US Vogue May (or maybe June) 2007

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm really disappointed in their choices. With the exception of Doutzen, I don't really care for any of these models. The inclusion of Lily Donaldson and Coco Rocha is especially outrageous and disgusting, regardless of their popularity. Doutzen is the only girl on the cover with real supermodel appeal.I sort of like Raquel and Caroline, but even they lack that IT factor.

    Chanel and Agyness don't belong, period. Me thinks the former was added for political purposes (to add "racial diversity", which is absurd because if you're going to take that route, why not include someone much more worthy like Du Juan?) And I don't see Agyness lasting very long. She has a "flash-in-the-pan" quality to her look.

    They should've included Snejana Onopka, Irina Lazareanu, Freja Beha (who I don't care for, but she IS big) and Anja Rubik.

    err, well while I do agree that Doutzen has the most supermodel appeal, I feel that I should point out, again, that the cover says absolutely nothing about any of these girls being supermodels, so they don't have to feature models who have any supermodel appeal if they don't want to. As such, the inclusion of people like Coco and Lily is not outrageous at all, even if they're unappealing commercially, because they are in fact doing extremely well in the fashion industry, and that is what a "Top Model" does. The only one who stands out as not being successful (yet) is Chanel. Even Agyness, though perhaps a flash in the pan as you suggest, is doing much better than Chanel (she's been in three of the major Vogues, landed a Vogue Italia cover last year, has 6 campaigns this season, did 30+ shows FW07, etc), and therefore has potential to continue being successful. Freja is [most likely] not on the cover b/c there are rumors that photographer Steven Meisel and she do not get along.

    I'd just like to add that Doutzen is the only girl on this cover who's on my top 10, and even she irks me at times. I don't like Coco. Agyness is meh to me. I'm on the fence with Sasha. I don't really notice Lily or Raquel. Stam is hit or miss for me. Hilary is growing on me but she's definitely not a fave. Caroline is overused in US Vogue and so whatever appeal she used to have to me has died. And I didn't even know of Chanel's existence until recently. So basically what I'm saying is that none of what I've said here has anything to do with my own personal preferences.

    ETA: I do agree that if they included Chanel for racial diversity, Du Juan should've been chosen instead. Despite the fact that Du Juan has slowed down considerably since last season, she is still a better and more deserving choice than Chanel.

×
×
  • Create New...