Knitter's Review Forums
  The online community for readers of Knitter's Review.
  This week: Revisiting the mitered square
   > Have you subscribed yet?
Knitter's Review Forums
KR Home | My Profile | Register | Active Topics | Private Messages | Search | FAQ | Want to make Betty happy?
 All Forums
 Spinner Central
 Spinning Articles, Magazines, Books, and Links
 New IK Weird Alien Models huh???

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
desperateknitwife Posted - 11/10/2007 : 02:53:57 AM
I'm rabble-rausing a backlash to using all coathanger models, as seen in the new IK.

Does anyone else find this trend disturbing? I mean it's not Harper's Bazaar and the audience for the most part tends to be more real world which is what I enjoyed about the previous models.

Anyone else scared off by the weird Jennifer Garner look alike on the cover and all the other models' spindley mile long arms and football shoulders and anorexic silhouettes? What about the botox, cologen injected horse lips and rampant airbrushing. What about the homage to Victoria's Secret 1980s lighting. Did these things put anyone else off?

Do we really need this trend for ALL the models in the most popular knitting magazine in the US? And they were doing so well.

I mean I felt like I was looking at some weird scientology alien porn magazine.

Just a thought.

3   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
anderknit Posted - 11/10/2007 : 7:55:22 PM
I just finished going through my copy and I kept thinking - YUCK. Some of the designs were truly off, and some had promise, but I thought all suffered from the models/styling. I didn't think it was edgy/porn at all - I thought that was plastic and stiff, almost like "Knitter's" styling. I can't really put my finger on it - was it the sheer nylons with skirts? The (again) plastic make-up and retro hair? I don't know. I just kept wishing for the models of old - the long curly red-haired woman with the rosy cheeks, and some of the others. I kept thinking - they threw those models overboard for these?

And by the way, why is this thread in the spinning section?

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, 'I will try again tomorrow.' "
baxterknits Posted - 11/10/2007 : 3:22:28 PM
I miss more of a "real folks" look, too. But I wonder, since they were showing more "classic" designs maybe they thought they needed to make it look "contemporary" by using edgier models.

Cindy G
http://baxterknits.blogspot.com
marjotse Posted - 11/10/2007 : 06:27:43 AM
Well it is not that bad is it? I did not like the styling much this time round, the pictures look somewhat plasticky (if that is a word) and I like the old models more as well but to compare it with an alien porn magazine, eh no not for me at least.

Marjolein

my photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/98299499@N00/

Knitter's Review Forums © 2001-2014 Knitter's Review Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.25 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000
line This week's bandwidth
kindly brought to you by


and by knitters like you.
How can I sponsor?


line subscribe to Knitter's Reviwe