Grace Park + Tricia Helfer in sizzling magazine photo shoot!

[august]

Just as two of the girls from the new Stargate Universe series did for a different magazine. SciFi Wire has the details here.

[Michael]

I have just never thought of the malnourished look as being sexy. Judging by the comments on that blog, it seems a lot of other people agree with me.

So why do they keep doing this to women (even if it WAS just a Photoshop job)?

[mrt77]

Cause they look **** good!

[august]

Originally Posted by Michael

Judging by the comments on that blog, it seems a lot of other people agree with me....

So why do they keep doing this to women ?

Because the nature of blogs is that they aren't representative of the general population, and people who post comments on a commercial site relating to science fiction are radically different from the general population (who by and large ridicule and marginalize people who follow science fiction.)

Plus I'm pretty sure that those aren't photoshopped pics of Park and Helfer - since they're name-brand actresses with agents, managers, etc. as opposed to anonymous models, I suspect they're pretty careful with how they're depicted. (I recall when Oprah was technologically slimmed down on a TV Guide cover long ago, she raised a big ruckus.) So the question then becomes - why are the women doing it to themselves? The answer would appear to be that for every internet complaint volunteered for free, there are a hundred thousand or more paying customers who will buy the magazine.

[EDSEL_PK]

Originally Posted by Michael

I have just never thought of the malnourished look as being sexy. Judging by the comments on that blog, it seems a lot of other people agree with me.

So why do they keep doing this to women (even if it WAS just a Photoshop job)?

The more voluptuous, curvy look is definitely preferable for me.

I never considered Grace Park as 'skinny'. Simply 'petite', as is her sis, Linda.

On 'Dollhouse' throngs of fans raved about Miracle Laurie/November, because she's a lovely and curvaceous woman. There, too, I approve of the fuller form. But I certainly wouldn't paint Dichen or Eliza as skinny, either. They're healthy and athletic.

As far as photoshop goes, I don't like it. The little identifying marks...freckles, moles, scars...they are unique to the individual, and I love them. And I don't care for thinning anyone down for a mag cover. When they thinned and lightened Beyonce a while back, I was appalled.

[Michael]

I don't know that all the skimpy actress pictures are selling that many more magazines. Plenty of print publications continue to shut down across the spectrum. It would be interesting to see how these entertainment mags are doing.

Anyone (August) have some numbers to share?

[august]

I don't know if the skimpy mags are selling any more or less than they used to, but Esquire and GQ are still going strong after decades, and often feature sexy actresses, minimally clad, on their covers. And newcomers like Maxim and FHM are all going into their second decade, and the size and frequency of the magazines seems to be pretty consistent - as I recall, all sell a million or so copies a month. Meaning of course that what the other 299 million people think doesn't matter. With the exception of a few A-listers like Julia Roberts, virtually every leading actress under 45 has done poses like this (Catherine Zeta Jones, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Una Thurman, Halle Berry, Kate Beckinsale, Angelina Jolie, etc. etc.) plus there are, what, 2 dozen or more women's magazines (Cosmo, Vogue, mademoiselle, et al.) that feature similarly revealing covers.

.....

ed. to add: Maxim now reports an average circulation/readership of 2.5 million readers in the US, with several dozen international variations.

I don't think there are any men's magazines that don't feature scantily clad women, are there? (Not counting specialty things like Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Outdoor Life, etc.)

[Michael]

I think Playboy has run into financial distress, though. I thought I had read somewhere that some other magazines were also making cuts. I suppose it's the advertising revenue that matters most, not the circulation.

[EDSEL_PK]

Originally Posted by Michael

I think Playboy has run into financial distress, though. I thought I had read somewhere that some other magazines were also making cuts. I suppose it's the advertising revenue that matters most, not the circulation.

Hefner's lost his edge. The magazine he founded once prided itself in the diversity of the women in its pages. Yet the past decade or so has seen a stream of uninteresting platinum Barbi replicants. Very little variety can be found there. And seemingly, there are no more HQ celebs to grace its hallowed pages. Heidi Montag (aside from having famous freinds, I've no idea what her talent is) recieved half a million $$$, and never even got undressed for her pictiorial.

They desperately need ME to take over. I could rekindle those flames and bring the once-revered publication into the 21st century.

[Michael]

Edsel, is your signature quote taken from Ahmad ibn Fadlan's book on the Vikings?

[EDSEL_PK]

Originally Posted by Michael

Edsel, is your signature quote taken from Ahmad ibn Fadlan's book on the Vikings?

It came from the film 'The 13th Warrior'. But a line had to be removed so that it would fit into the max character limit of 250.

[august]

Originally Posted by Michael

I think Playboy has run into financial distress, though. I thought I had read somewhere that some other magazines were also making cuts. I suppose it's the advertising revenue that matters most, not the circulation.

Apparently that's an urban myth. Various sites confirm that Playboy is still the top selling men's magazine, selling about 2.6 million copies per month. The size seems to be about the same, so ad revenues in recent years appear to have remained constant. That's significantly down from its heyday in the 70's, when it sold more than 7 million copies per month, but that's the nature of everything in creation - at some point, everything reaches its highest point ever, and then never surpasses that.

.....

ed. to add: some magazines that are not doing as well as Maxim include: Glamour, O (Oprah's mag) Redbook, Parents, Seventeen, Martha Stewart Living, Smithsonian, US News, Vogue, and Guideposts. The ones that are, seem to cater to a much older audience (Reader's Digest, several AARP magazines, Better Homes + Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Family Circle, etc.)

[mrt77]

Originally Posted by EDSEL_PK

They desperately need ME to take over. I could rekindle those flames and bring the once-revered publication into the 21st century.

Why would anyone shell out for the monthly mag given its primary content in the Internet age?

(that said, I did buy the Maxim with Trisha & Grace in it, my first!)