Top model Giselle B. makes 25-30 million a yr! Hmmm,bikini and MPD anyone?

[cephissus]

What happened to all the other models VS and other brands endorsed?

Are you serious?  Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Miranda Kerr, Marissa Miller, etc. etc. etc.

Take any blank-canvas of a girl, of which there are many, and from that point on the corporation is the artist.  If this is not the case then why is it so hard to list which of these girls' skills, exactly, lend themselves to success in this business?

[cephissus]

I also want to mention about this business about athletes deserving what they get because they have a specific skill and worked hard to develop it.

But again this is luck of the draw. Contrary to the feel good saying that a champion is made not born, the fact is for the most part they are born. They are born with a talent that the rest of mere mortals don't have no matter what we do, take or how hard we work.

Sure they work hard but not any harder than their competitors. I mentioned Tiger Woods. When he was a champ while still in his teens he simply did not live long enough to put in the time and effort that his competition did.

Take bodybuilding. Does anyone really think that Ronnie took some special cocktail of drugs or more of them than any of his rivals? Did he train harder than the nobody bodybuilder, Benny Podda, who I witnessed squatting until his nose burst with blood? Ronnie was genetically gifted. Sure he did more and worked harder than a model who just happened to be born with a specific look. But in both cases what took them to the top was a gift from God.

This is a very good post and highlights that, in the case of models vs. athletes (or anyone) it's simply a difference of DEGREE.

Athletes have natural talent that they develop into refined skills.  Models have some natural talent that they develop (hardly at all) into completely trivial skills (not being an idiot, being able to give speeches... uh... not ashamed to walk down an aisle with few clothes on?).

The athletes develop their skills to (relative to the models) very high levels (not in all cases, I suppose, but most).

[body88]

Are you serious?  Adriana Lima, Alessandro Ambrosia, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Miranda Kerr, Marissa Miller, etc. etc. etc.

Take any blank-canvas of a girl, of which there are many, and from that point on the corporation is the artist.  If this is not the case then why is it so hard to list which of these girls' skills, exactly, lend themselves to success in this business?

There are about a thousand that you didn't name. You went ahead and named the 1% that survive and make a living of their skill.

I've listed their skills about 10 times.

[cephissus]

Again what skill is that?

Knowing who to blow?

Walking down the street when VS agent is present?

[pellius]

And since I'm in a generous mood tonight (9:00 PM Hawaii time) I will explain to you this whole business of fairness.

There are essentially two definitions of fairness. One: everyone has an equal opportunity for success. Two: everyone plays by the same rules.

They both seem reasonable but they are indeed quite different. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Having one virtually precludes the possibility of having the other. Because we are all born different playing by the same rules virtually guarantees that we will not have the same opportunities for success. As I mentioned before, if I was born in the Congo my opportunities are severely limited than if I was born in the US. Being born a dwarf is going to make it pretty hard to be an NBA player. The only way I will ever have a chance at being able to cross the finish line at the same time as an Olympic Gold medalist is  by handicapping my competition. Giving me a head start which will be determined by how fast the other sprinter is and how fast I am. If it's a group of us then the necessary calculations will have to be made, taking into account all the various factors, including how much rest each of us had and what are biorhythms are on that particular day, to "make it fair." For all of us to finish at the same time everyone will have to slow down to accommodate the slowest runner. There are consequences to playing God.

It's one thing trying to strive for equality of opportunity. It's quite another striving for equality of result.
 

[Master Blaster]

yep. this woman 'earns' (i love how they always say 'earns'  ) tens of millions of dollars a year. for what? FOR WHAT? 6 foot tall, no tits, no ass, no hips, no curves, generic face.

good ol' capitalism 

that chick looks SO hot, whats wrong with you idiots???

[bradistani]

Are you serious?  Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Miranda Kerr, Marissa Miller, etc. etc. etc.

Take any blank-canvas of a girl, of which there are many, and from that point on the corporation is the artist.  If this is not the case then why is it so hard to list which of these girls' skills, exactly, lend themselves to success in this business?

this


'skill' 

[Parker]

I motion that WE at getbig, form our own fashion house/brand and hire the models WE want on the catwalk...he,he...that would really shake up the toothpick status quo

[kiwiol]

Again what skill is that?

Knowing who to blow?

Walking down the street when VS agent is present?

It's not purely about talent or looks or luck or all the behind-the-scene activities and chance happenings - it's all of that and maybe more.

Take any top star in Hollywood, say Clint Eastwood, and you'll find there are better looking guys out there (no homo), some of whom can act better. But none of them have CE's connection with the audience and his image that they identify with when they hear his name. Which is why if you replaced him, the new person will not get the same kind of response even if he looked and acted better. Which is why you can't just replace an existing name with a nameless nobody who is just another pretty face among tens of thousands in the industry.

The fashion industry as well as the jewellery, cosmetics and misc. industries whose products Giselle models for all are multi-billion dollar revenue industries. So they know what they are doing and I'm sure getting the best price they can for it.

If you want to talk about the fashion industry driving a particular image down our throats (androgynous qualities etc), that's a whole different topic altogether.

[kiwiol]

that chick looks SO hot, whats wrong with you idiots???

I agree. Slurp

[cephissus]

It's not purely about talent or looks or luck or all the behind-the-scene activities and chance happenings - it's all of that and maybe more.

Take any top star in Hollywood, say Clint Eastwood, and you'll find there are better looking guys out there (no homo), some of whom can act better. But none of them have CE's connection with the audience and his image that they identify with when they hear his name. Which is why if you replaced him, the new person will not get the same kind of response even if he looked and acted better. Which is why you can't just replace an existing name with a nameless nobody who is just another pretty face among tens of thousands in the industry.

There was a time, I'm sure, when Clint was just starting out that he didn't have nearly the same "connection with the audience" that he does today.  But he had the looks, and he had the acting skills -- give him enough time in the spotlight and he'll generate a connection.

Same as any model... get the right sort of person (again, in this industry that's saying very little about their skill, more about their looks) and put 'em in the spotlight.  Throw them up on TV in front of millions of people, plaster their ads in countless magazines, spin out tons of articles about how great they are and how glamorous their lifestyle is and how much money they make, and soon enough people will be in love.

And I have no doubt the multi-billion dollar industries know what they're doing.  I'm sure they're well aware of the fact that they can pick any one of a hundred thousand girls and promote her and soon enough fans will love her.  It's no different than dressing up a mannequin to them.

[kiwiol]

There was a time, I'm sure, when Clint was just starting out that he didn't have nearly the same "connection with the audience" that he does today.  But he had the looks, and he had the acting skills -- give him enough time in the spotlight and he'll generate a connection.

Same as any model... get the right sort of person (again, in this industry that's saying very little about their skill, more about their looks) and put 'em in the spotlight.  Throw them up on TV in front of millions of people, plaster their ads in countless magazines, spin out tons of articles about how great they are and how glamorous their lifestyle is and how much money they make, and soon enough people will be in love.

And I have no doubt the multi-billion dollar industries know what they're doing.  I'm sure they're well aware of the fact that they can pick any one of a hundred thousand girls and promote her and soon enough fans will love her.  It's no different than dressing up a mannequin to them.

You can establish any name or image in time, with the right marketing, true. But once you've spent a lot of time and money into creating an image, why simply abandon it and start afresh?

[225for70]

I agree. Slurp

You wouldn't have have sex with her Kiwiol?

She's very hot and i would even leave the lights on while i ate her "funky blueberry-wildberry" scented shaved pussy.

[kiwiol]

You wouldn't have have sex with her Kiwiol?

She's very hot and i would even leave the lights on while i ate her "funky blueberry-wildberry" scented shaved pussy.

I wouldn't kick her out of bed - unless she interferes with my post-workout window of opportunity

[cephissus]

You can establish any name or image in time, with the right marketing, true. But once you've spent a lot of time and money into creating an image, why simply abandon it and start afresh?

Oh right, of course.  I don't think I was suggesting that?  The whole time I was just trying to show that Giselle's "skills" shouldn't be credited for her "brand."  Instead, credit should go to the the fashion corporations.

[~UN_$ung~]

this is very telling


but some of you are missing the full picture..........its not about having the prettiest face in the entire world.........its her body, and they way she can present clothing

what is she 5'11........6 foot............110 lbs.............i dont think you appreciate how rare her body is for a woman, to be that tall,,,,,,,,,,and proportioned, and not gangly


the face matter of course........but girls faces are an illusion anyway...........as long as a girls face is reasonably attractive (no glaring deformities or disfigurements)...........you can do ANYTHING with makeup...........as long as the girls face is reasonably attractive, with top level cosmeticians., you can do ANYTHING


its her dimensions, that are rare..........for a woman to be that tall, and still be petite...........not big assed, or hippy, or cankly like tall chicks are


as long as the body is there, you can create the face

[Parker]

There was a time, I'm sure, when Clint was just starting out that he didn't have nearly the same "connection with the audience" that he does today.  But he had the looks, and he had the acting skills -- give him enough time in the spotlight and he'll generate a connection.

Same as any model... get the right sort of person (again, in this industry that's saying very little about their skill, more about their looks) and put 'em in the spotlight.  Throw them up on TV in front of millions of people, plaster their ads in countless magazines, spin out tons of articles about how great they are and how glamorous their lifestyle is and how much money they make, and soon enough people will be in love.

And I have no doubt the multi-billion dollar industries know what they're doing.  I'm sure they're well aware of the fact that they can pick any one of a hundred thousand girls and promote her and soon enough fans will love her.  It's no different than dressing up a mannequin to them.

The fashion industy tend to favor androgynous faces due to being able to make them into whatever they want, and to nullify "attractiveness"---as was stated they are selling a product, so they must compliment the product, not overshadow it...a perfect example is rims on a car. A nice rim should compliment or bring out certain qualities of the car (how it sits, handling, weight, looks), but some goo too far (the Dubs route) and it is the rim that his showcased, not the car...this is where the ghetto, hillbilly, wannabe people come in. The rims are worth more than the car, and the car is worth shit.

The model is the rim, and the clothes are the car...in the fashion world, in the real world it is the car (the model) that should get the most attention, not the rim (clothing).

[JOHN MATRIX]

Kobe is a great basketball player with a lot of talent.  He worked his way up to the top.  Giselle is an average model-looking girl who was in the right place at the right time -- corporations did EVERYTHING, to make her famous.

Corporations can't take some guy from your local gym and make him into Kobe.  They can take any number of a dozen girls you probably know personally and turn them into Giselle.   That's the difference.

end thread.

they dont seem to get that she is a Product of the corporations that use her. nothing more. there is nothing 'special' about her in particular.

if they want to keep believing that she is some super-talented superhuman who has some unique ability, fuck em. its thinking/people like them that keep the stupid system going ...at the expense of those who actually do useful things.

[Parker]

Are you serious?  Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Tyra Banks, Miranda Kerr, Marissa Miller, etc. etc. etc.

Take any blank-canvas of a girl, of which there are many, and from that point on the corporation is the artist.  If this is not the case then why is it so hard to list which of these girls' skills, exactly, lend themselves to success in this business?

Tyra has tits, the others don't. In fact, that was the big "knock" on Tyra, she was busty....

[suckmymuscle]

yep. this woman 'earns' (i love how they always say 'earns'  ) tens of millions of dollars a year. for what? FOR WHAT? 6 foot tall, no tits, no ass, no hips, no curves, generic face.

good ol' capitalism 

  Even with make-up, she still looks like a plain Jane with the only good attribute being her high cheek bones.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[JOHN MATRIX]

  Even with make-up, she still looks like a plain Jane with the only good attribute being her high cheek bones.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

how dare you say that SUCK, clearly she is a uber-talented goddess among mortals whos incredible skills led her to a position which no other woman could achieve, she EARNS her millions because she is far more beautiful and Talented than any other.

[WillGrant]

Keeping this BB related

[webcake]

Keeping this BB related

[~UN_$ung~]

Keeping this BB related

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/1/128856866992795227.jpg

[Jaime]

The fashion industy tend to favor androgynous faces due to being able to make them into whatever they want, and to nullify "attractiveness"---as was stated they are selling a product, so they must compliment the product, not overshadow it...a perfect example is rims on a car. A nice rim should compliment or bring out certain qualities of the car (how it sits, handling, weight, looks), but some goo too far (the Dubs route) and it is the rim that his showcased, not the car...this is where the ghetto, hillbilly, wannabe people come in. The rims are worth more than the car, and the car is worth shit.

The model is the rim, and the clothes are the car...in the fashion world, in the real world it is the car (the model) that should get the most attention, not the rim (clothing).

Not a very accurate post Parker.

The model is the centre of attention. It just so happens that there are a wide variety of ideals and sometimes an emphasis on unusualness regardless of other factors. There is no singular representation, masculinity, femininity, androgeny, it's all there in varying ammounts.

It depends very much on what market they are trying to appeal to and the direction that they want to go with the product.

Gisele is like a Kate Moss type, Plain, certain unusual attributes, androgynous, that got pushed and is in the public eye now so is unlikely to fall out of favor.

She is known so lends any brand instant recognition. Thats whats it's about and the same reason the Kim Kardashians, Paris Hiltons, Situations,of this world are in demand.

You think there aren't a thousand models out there that aren't in better shape and have a better look than say Posh and Becks, Megan Fox? it's just a numbers game.