phenobarbie

Actually Heidi openly talked about her "body clause" that she broke when she was pregnant. Not to mention, if you are signing on for a job that requires a certain physique then yes, any type of clause can be worked into the contract. Both parties sign it knowingly. It's not like Doutzen, or Adriana, or Alessandra, or any other girl who gets pregnant can be used to market lingerie or swimwear, (not any of the current VS lines). Another case of having a body clause is Baywatch Both American companies/productions, both banking their money on having girls who fit a certain mold/stereotype. So chances are whenever one of these girls gets pregnant they have money knocked off their contract, or the company can choose to overlook the clause, which they may very well do as they have a fairly strong working relationship with the majority of their contract models. But in the end, it's still money out of their pocket if the girls are breaching contract. Also, I believe I can recall when Candice came under fire by the media for being to slim the company in essence told her to gain weight as it wasn't deemed good publicity or the correct marketing path. If there wasn't a contractual clause they quite probably wouldn't have said anything.

Hardly unethical or against the law. Chances are she signed a body clause in her contract, which she is directly going against by becoming pregnant. However the company has obviously in previous years overlooked that and been more then happy to work with their angels that have become pregnant. Regardless, if her contract is up it wont matter if she's pregnant or not as VS contracts have in the past been based on a period of time not on hours worked. So if her contract was set to expire in 2014 they would have to sit down and renegotiate a longer contract, or choose to not renew. If they choose not to sign another contract there are no legal ramifications as her pregnancy has nothing to do with the expiration of the previous contract.

Just to point out for those of you who don't understand why that Kathy cover is in number 1 spot, it was the top selling issue for SI Swim, Kate's cover being second last I heard, though that may or may not have changed. So I'm not quite sure why it's such a big surprise. The top 3 covers were pretty self explanatory. Top selling issue, (Kathy) Antarctica, (Kate) First African American to grace the cover, (Tyra) Elle and Christie 6 and 4 respectively being the only two cover girls to grace it 3 times back to back to back. Heidi is well Heidi... nothing springing to mind atm. It's not rocket science, and for the most part it all makes sense. They're SI historical landmarks so to speak. Cheryl again had 3 covers, none of which were group shots which is where Daniela fell short as her 3rd cover was the 2006 group shot. As for Brooklyn, Rebecca and Marisa they were decent covers.

5xmvp/most passes or something / and possible Superbowl win on different team then his first win (obviously failed at that)

They're nothing special. Most of the pictures are reprints, or simply pictures we've seen with a slightly different angle.

Say whaaat? I like her a lot but she hasn't got a chance in hell, IMO. She is way too artsy/hipster/naked to be a real face for SI. I'd rather see her go on to do a bunch more David Fincher movies, anyway... well, she will be in the magazine, that's for sure. and she's already more popular than all of the girls in last year's issue with the exception of kate upton and irina shayk. more popular than nina, chrissy, alyssa, etc. at this point she's not only more popular than kate upton before her rookie appearance, she's more popular than kate after her rookie appearance. meaning she's just as popular as kate was when she got her first cover. so it's not entirely unlikely (and in fact i think quite likely) that she'll get the cover. remember, esquire readers (with a lot of overlap in demographic with SI swim) picked emily, not kate, as their woman of the year a few months ago. anyway, the news value of having a repeat cover was exhausted last year. the only reason i think it's still questionable is i'm not sure they managed to get any flattering pictures of kate during their zero-gravity shoot. emily already has a body that defies gravity! :brows: Rumor? At this rate, she's a shoe-in. It's all about cross-promotion. She's was in the most popular music video of last year, and she's going to be starring in the Gone Girl movie. The cover will be another feather in her cap on her way to superstardom. Using that logic Kate Upton has the movie "The Other Woman" coming out with Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann and Kate Upton as top billed cast where as "Gone Girl" Emily is just being listed as the mistress. And as much as no one wants to admit, it was the most popular video of "last" year, emphasis on last. I'm not saying one way or the other, just pointing out that the logic doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. However, regardless of who is on the cover I am quite excited to see Emily in the magazine, her body is quite spectacular and I think she can bring some excitement back to what has become a little to predictable.

I agree that most of these girls are filler, and I like Martha but I truly have no real interest in defending her against honesty. It's just when people refuse to look at both sides of the debate that I say anything. As for the other girls retaining their bodies, that is beyond laughable. Adriana looks rather boxy, Alessandra fluctuates so much it's a joke, Doutzen has abs/shoulders like a linesman, Behati is way to skinny, Candice has hips and a broken back, and Karlie is incredibly petite. Taking all that aside, Karlie and Lily are probably the best in their lineup, one because one fits a body type that is quite often ignored when it comes to lingerie, the other because she finally grew into her body and looks decent. I'm not impressed with the vast majority of their lineup, as is evident in my breakdown, but I don't see a problem with their commercial lineup, it's what the brand has turned into.

You mean it's almost the same lineup as the last 3 years? And the christmas commercial, and the 90's nostalgia commercial? I get that everyone likes the "good ol' days" but there comes a point when we need to move on.

winning

What's your problem? This is a forum, we're supposed to discuss our opinions in a respectful manner. You mocking me is not respectful and more importantly does not contribute to this thread at all. If you wish to do so, please just message me privately.——— Savanna, I think you're totally right. They are definitely doing a blonde/brunette thing I think. I wonder if Karlie and Lily will show up? What is this commercial for again? You're right this is a forum and it's a place where we discuss opinions. My opinion is... I would be incredibly upset if they put Doutzen in the commercial over Martha. I'm sorry if you feel that me expressing that is mocking you or your opinion. But I'm not sure how my opinion isn't contributing to the thread and yet yours is?

Oh please baby jesus, lord and savior no Doutzen. If they use Doutzen over Martha I'm gonna be so pissed.

Agreed, they weren't the best pictures possible, but whatevs. Missy muffin, find me a recipe for a traditional black rye please and I might tell you something interesting.

No

Always so positive and friendly talisa.. nice to see things haven't changed.

Sarah Stephens w/ scouts? or something Model with a large scar somewhere on their body/face

Do any of the Peta ads count?

That's how I see it. She's being booked outside of VS because of her name with VS and the exposure associated with that because she is synonymous with the brand which comes with a lot of publicity. Take away Victoria's Secret and I just don't think she'd be booking as much work. Whereas girls like Adriana, Kate, Gisele etc are known for their work, but their name has transcended the brand they were initially associated with and they can book additional work because of who they are and not who they are currently working for. Not to belittle Candice in the slightest as she is a gorgeous woman, and her work is quite frequently very good, but it doesn't take a stellar model to do catalog work for VS and quite frequently, especially with their newer models the "stars" emerge not because they are amazing models but because VS pushes them, or doesn't. Note Candice's skyrocket to "fame", and Lily's much more gradual climb.. Or Erin vs Lindsay. Erin was pushed more whereas Lindsay has sat on the back burner.

Did we watch the same show? The one where she had that tacky raccoon eyeliner, looked burned out, and was super awkward and cocky? It was not a good look at all. Kelly Gale and Sara Sampaio looked miles better on the pre-show, and presented themselves much better. This is seriously deluded. I'm sorry but there is no way Martha could ever, ever even be remotely on Candice's level (or any of the other angels' really). She doesn't have anything going for her that would catch the public's eye. She's the blonde catalogue model on page 11.

Her legs are beyond spectacular. Thank you for the adds Donbot!

Funny I found that Martha stood out more in the Christmas commercial than any of the other girls, including Candice, even though Candice had the more eye catching styling. Not to mention Martha didn't do a bad job promoting VS during the spot she had during the Macy's day Parade. Nor does she bear any resemblance to Kate Upton, or share any similar career paths to her, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting the comparison. Sadly 90% of the current VS angel line up either needs to retire or should never have been hired to begin with. Either you made a name in the first year for yourself or it's probably not going to happen regardless of how much the company tries to make it. So I say give Martha a shot, I personally think she makes a great spokes model, and has the potential to be as big or bigger than Candice. But who knows, guess it depends on how they decide to market her, they seem pretty hit or miss with a lot of their girls. As for Elsa she's adorable, but I'm not sure the big doe eyed deer in headlights, bouncy over the top look would work for mainline. Then again, they have opened mouth sexy deer so hey, it just might. And Sara, I personally find much more attractive in clothing then I do lingerie or swimwear. Her body is a little boxy, with not a whole lot on the bottom or the top and a very linear waistline.

Wouldn't all that information have been better suited to the general Sports Illustrated thread that is in this subsection...

Most of these women are over rated. Nina for example, or how about Marisa, ooh or Kate, maybe Kathy, or Cindy. Want me to continue on that train? They wore swimsuits I'm not quite sure what you expect, but everyone has different tastes and definitions of beauty. So let's not come out with guns blazing and start throwing out insults. They're beautiful women who were featured in a magazine that men and women have enjoyed for years. There's no over glorification, there's enjoyment. If you don't enjoy it don't look at it, but don't come in here insulting other women, and stating that they are over rated is a back handed, passive aggressive insult at best.

I don't see really see it as good acting. You could tell she thought it was stupid as you said, and I'm pretty sure they were going for cute and girly... not I think this is stupid but I'm being paid to do this so I'll do it.

Cover shot is a picture that was taken back in 2012 for Cosmo.