Which of Today's Models Have the Most Lasting Power?

[iluvjeisa]

No, it doesn't apply to Stam at all. But Stam's edge and appealing uniqueness make up for her lack of classic beauty. Gemma's features are weird, but not in an interesting or appealing way, imo. That's the problem. To make a good model you've either got to be extremely beautiful or really interesting -- or if you're lucky a little of both! Gemma doesn't have any of those qualities.

And I think exactly the reverse - neither Gemma nor Stam are classic beauties. But Stam, while naturally cute, is as boring as Amber Valetta and Shalom Harlow rolled into one while Gemma has a strange Penelope Tree Twiggy type appeal. I think I know what I prefer

 

[iluvjeisa]

How about... Natalie portman even though shes not a model but she has that thing that evryone finds her appealing

hehe, I don't! She's pretty but looks oh so cold and boring.

 

[smartarse]

^ To make a good lasting model she to have sex appeal. And Sex sells and therefore it's a mans world.... (so to speak)

 

[marqueemoon]

And I think exactly the reverse - neither Gemma nor Stam are classic beauties. But Stam, while naturally cute, is as boring as Amber Valetta and Shalom Harlow rolled into one while Gemma has a strange Penelope Tree Twiggy type appeal. I think I know what I prefer

Matter of preference I guess. For what it's worth I've noticed a lot of people don't "get" Gemma, while most people seem to like Stam and will grant that she's much more versatile than Gemma. It doesn't help that Gemma looks totally dead in photos/runway, and only has one expression... Just my opinion.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I kinda feel bad for Hedy-- that article was all about her being the most *beautiful* woman in cinema. Call me crazy, I'd like to be remembered for more than being someone's favorite to look at.... hmm.

But the writer made a valid point, though - some people are musical, others verbally gifted....why would beauty be any less, really?

I think Hedy is remembered for her intelligence as well, afterall she was awarded a technology price which has been awarded to the likes of Metcalf (founder of ethernet), Engelbart (developed hypertext and the computer mouse), Kahn (co-inventor of TCP/IP protocol with VGC) and Vinton G Cerf (the founder of the internet). Nice company

 

[iluvjeisa]

Matter of preference I guess. For what it's worth I've noticed a lot of people don't "get" Gemma, while most people seem to like Stam and will grant that she's much more versatile than Gemma. It doesn't help that Gemma looks totally dead in photos/runway, and only has one expression... Just my opinion.

Yeah....I think you may have a slighly distorted view of their respective popularities. It is possible that Gemma provokes more emotion on both sides, both positive and negative, though. As I said, I think Stam is all right with her cute face, one sleepy expression and bored look. As far as the "I'm too cool and bizarre for this runway"-models go I really prefer Freja or Snejana to Stam.

 

[marqueemoon]

Yeah....I think you may have a slighly distorted view of their respective popularities. It is possible that Gemma provokes more emotion on both sides, both positive and negative, though. As I said, I think Stam is all right with her cute face, one sleepy expression and bored look. As far as the "I'm too cool and bizarre for this runway"-models go I really prefer Freja or Snejana to Stam.

From what I've seen Stam has her fair share of very devoted fans too. If Gemma evokes more intense reactions it's because her face is so odd and unsubtle, and some people will like anything that's weird enough. Take Omahyra. She has tons of admirers and detractors, but when you get down to it her look is very boring and straightforward. Do we really need another androgynous biker ****? Stam, on the other hand has a more complex, subtle look that some may dismiss because it's not in-your-face. I also strongly disagree that she only has one expression. She can do innocent, sexy, edgy, bored, intense, or all at once. Gemma really does have just one expression and it's a blank one.

Okay, I'm going to be completely blunt here: Snejana is TERRIBLE, terrible on the runway. I fell in love with her when I saw The Vogue Italia cover but was sorely disappointed by the stooped, corpse-like creature that emerged on the catwalk a few weeks later. She looks like a vampire's half-eaten midnight snack.

Freja's just unattractive.

Off topic, but I think Amanda Moore has a lot of staying power (as she has already proven). I've come to really appreciate her.

 

[iluvjeisa]

From what I've seen Stam has her fair share of very devoted fans too. If Gemma evokes more intense reactions it's because her face is so odd and unsubtle, and some people will like anything that's weird enough. Take Omahyra. She has tons of admirers and detractors, but when you get down to it her look is very boring and straightforward. Do we really need another androgynous biker ****? Stam, on the other hand has a more complex, subtle look that some may dismiss because it's not in-your-face. I also strongly disagree that she only has one expression. She can do innocent, sexy, edgy, bored, intense, or all at once. Gemma really does have just one expression and it's a blank one.

Okay, I'm going to be completely blunt here: Snejana is TERRIBLE, terrible on the runway. I fell in love with her when I saw The Vogue Italia cover but was sorely disappointed by the stooped, corpse-like creature that emerged on the catwalk a few weeks later. She looks like a vampire's half-eaten midnight snack.

Freja's just unattractive.

Off topic, but I think Amanda Moore has a lot of staying power (as she has already proven). I've come to really appreciate her.

I think we've gotten about as far as we can get about Gemma and Stam. I couldn't disagree more with you What you call subtle, I call boring.

Snejana is odd and beautiful. Her walk is reminescent of 50s fashion elegance - the way models worked the shows then - with shorter steps and less movement. It definitely is striking and somehow reminds me a bit of Marlene Dietrich.

 

[marqueemoon]

I think we've gotten about as far as we can get about Gemma and Stam. I couldn't disagree more with you What you call subtle, I call boring.

Snejana is odd and beautiful. Her walk is reminescent of 50s fashion elegance - the way models worked the shows then - with shorter steps and less movement. It definitely is striking and somehow reminds me a bit of Marlene Dietrich.

Yup, I guess we just have very different taste. Don't like Marlene Dietrich either: scary man-woman (pardon my French). ...Though I like Uma Thurman who looks a bit like her.

 

[liv4beauty]

I think Snejana is gorgeous. She has that striking and aloof beauty which never goes out of style. She has facial features for a cosmetics contract as well.

I also agree with a poster above, you must have some type of sex appeal to stay around for awhile.

 

[indie]

About "universal face" I'm not sure am I getting it right, but IMO gema has a universal face like asian + european , if you get my point

 

[liv4beauty]

I assume univeral as in conventional beauty.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I think Snejana is gorgeous. She has that striking and aloof beauty which never goes out of style. She has facial features for a cosmetics contract as well.

I also agree with a poster above, you must have some type of sex appeal to stay around for awhile.

I think it's good with versatility but models have stayed around for quite some time without massive sex appeal; Karen Graham, Twiggy, Penelope Tree (even though I think it didn't last THAT long), Jean Shrimpton, Lauren Hutton, Linda Evangelista, Amber Valetta....for instance.

 

[marqueemoon]

I think Snejana is gorgeous. She has that striking and aloof beauty which never goes out of style. She has facial features for a cosmetics contract as well.

I also agree with a poster above, you must have some type of sex appeal to stay around for awhile.

I really like Snejana as an editorial model, but not on the runway. She does have the occasional striking candid, though:

I love her eyelids here, but sometimes they make her look dead.

 

[iluvjeisa]

About "universal face" I'm not sure am I getting it right, but IMO gema has a universal face like asian + european , if you get my point

I definitely do

 

[marqueemoon]

I definitely do

Sorry to harp on this point, but I have a feeling she'd be considered unattractive in Asia. Most Asian countries are into the Caucasian look.

To clarify, Gemma has Caucasian coloring but rather Asian features. I dig the Eurasian look when it combines Asian coloring and Caucasian features with an exotic splash around the eyes, but the light-hair/heavily-Asian-features is a rather awkward combination, imo.

 

[millsont]

It's acsually hard for a person to have universal appeal, because in every place they have a different standard of beauty and people idolize a different kind of face SOMETIMES depending on their own race, culture etc.
ie. The majority of my asian/Korean friends are i love with Hye Park....
While my african american friends really believe it doesn't get better than Naomi Campbell, and think angelina Jolie isn't all that great....So honestly everyone has their own opinion depending from where they are in the world and environment they are in...

 

[cestmagique]

But the writer made a valid point, though - some people are musical, others verbally gifted....why would beauty be any less, really?

I think Hedy is remembered for her intelligence as well, afterall she was awarded a technology price which has been awarded to the likes of Metcalf (founder of ethernet), Engelbart (developed hypertext and the computer mouse), Kahn (co-inventor of TCP/IP protocol with VGC) and Vinton G Cerf (the founder of the internet). Nice company

Well, our gifts are genetic to great degree, but to capitalize on natural musical or other talents, you need more-- such as passion, creativity, soul. But to be beautiful? I don't think you can reasonably equate beauty with the aforementioned gifts... beauty begins and ends with what genes you have, but the others ask more. I would much rather be praised for being creative or compassionate than beautiful.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Well, our gifts are genetic to great degree, but to capitalize on natural musical or other talents, you need more-- such as passion, creativity, soul. But to be beautiful? I don't think you can reasonably equate beauty with the aforementioned gifts... beauty begins and ends with what genes you have, but the others ask more. I would much rather be praised for being creative or compassionate than beautiful.

No human quality begins and ends with the genes. A person with beautiful bone structure and great skin still has to apply themselves - at least to a minimal degree - in order to look beatiful. I've seen them myself - people who have everything it takes but don't apply themselves because they hold other things higher or don't have the confidence, or whatever the reason is.

Even empathy/compassion is very much, but not completely, inherited or determined by circumstances before the age of 10.

These are gifts given to us, or not, by the genes and by circumstances. All of them are equally admirable in themselves - to me. Of course, I'd rather KNOW someone who is creative, inventive, compassionate, sweet and fun. But I'd rather admire someone from afar who has the confidence and beauty/musical talent/acting ability/writing/directing/photographing - because it is just so entertaining and fascinating - gives you a kick.

 

[cestmagique]

^ It's true I was speaking simplistically, but I didn't really have the time to write out a long message. I don't agree though; to me, beauty isn't marred by frizzy hair or a bit of shine on the skin. If you're really beautiful, there isn't much you have to do by way of upkeep. I mean Tiiu and Ruslana, Jeisa, etc. probably would look just fine even if they caught the flu, ate big bowls of pasta, didn't wash their faces religiously, and so on. In my opinion, the beauty we look upon in these forums is not a product of circumstance-- it's natural good fortune! (damn them ) If it weren't, they wouldn't be so special, because us normal people would get to achieve their level of "physical perfection." On the other hand, someone can have a natural inclination to music, but if they have no dedication or desire, that goes to waste. So I respect those people who can devote themselves to it, and reach beyond what is typical to produce the extraordinary. I can't say that I respect a girl all that much who will exercise and practice perfect skin care to fit societal standards, as I would Bob Dylan! Not that I would disrespect her, but it just doesn't matter all that much to me. Then again pretty faces are just that to me-- pretty faces. I suppose the most important factor, the reason for the differences in our opinions, is how much stock you put in beauty and how much it affects you. Personally I don't care that much. I have fun in the Supporting Cast, but I am not "in love" with the model of the moment like others can be, lol. Sorry if that made no sense. I suppose if we don't come to terms, we can agree to disagree?