i cant agree. i think the shoes were a key part of the collection. as oliver said they were part of his sketches. he didnt even bother to measure them he just knew that was the right size for the proportion he had sketched.
i think that the shoes is one of the things that gave the collection a very graphic and illustration-like quality.
just like the impossible volumes, the fabric that ruffles exactly where it should... i guess we could say it's like the other side of the coin of atelier versace... on the one side you see the sketches, and presented next to it is the dress... sure the real thing is gorgeous, but sometimes it makes you wish that it looked "more like the drawing", that the girls legs were that high, or the heels as impossibly high as they are drawn...
i personally can relate to it, because it's the way i like to sketch things (not that i sketch that much... but that's another story) ... tiny shoulders, impossibly long legs, sometimes even unfinished heels (which i guess would be the case here)
EDIT: flicking through uk vogue from march i saw a Blahnik ad and came up with a better comparison than Versace... and sure more appropriate for this thread... the sketch is beyond ravishing. the actual shoe, is pretty average (in terms of proportion, the height, etc)
gamil.com