This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Haven't you got an elsewhere to be?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 21 December 2014




Tweet







February 10 2011

Michelle Trachtenberg is Maxim's newest covergirl. After long declining to pose for any 'lad mag', she finally consents.

She looks great. I love the lingerie.
Why is she staring at me like that?
So much photoshop.
Yeah, too much Photoshop and in that second pic her staring is kind of weird, but she looks beautiful and tasteful.
Oh my ...

I'm torn; on the one hand, she's VERY lovely. But ... but ... Dawnie! What would Joyce think?
Photoshop to elongate the limbs and either lots and lots of laser in real life or Photoshop for the arm hair... But either way I share the "ew! she's our little sister!" feeling.
She has the same expression in the first and second pictures.
Proof that a pretty girl does not a model make. She looks gorgeous, but those expressions are just...unsettling.
I'll be in my bunk.

(Except that second picture, that really is an unsettling stare.)
I don't get why people are feeling so unsettled.

*looks at her face*

Oh, right...
She's a little over-airbrushed.
Reminds me of a Mischa Barton. Not sure if that's a good thing.
Why is she staring at me like that?


Ha! Yeah, her intense eyes are unsettling. The pic they chose for the cover works, but those other two pictures she's giving the Scary Eye. She needs to tone down on the intense eyes, she's trying too hard to be sexy.

But she's very beautiful, of course.

[ edited by Emmie on 2011-02-10 22:35 ]
The feminist in me is reminded of Liz Lemon saying: "Avery Jessup, yeah, she's hot. She was on Maxim's "I'd Rape That 100." "

Edited for proper quotage and grammatical mistake (thanks gossi)

[ edited by cazador on 2011-02-10 23:50 ]
Photoshop aside, great cover shot.

[ edited by Wyndam_ on 2011-02-10 22:48 ]
Can we not do rape jokes? Not today and, you know, ever.
It's not really a rape joke, it's a comment on the way that Maxim treats women as objects.
There's two quote marks missing in the joke.
Best issue of Maxim ever now.
I'm in the middle of the early Dawn episodes in my Buffy rewatch. Makes this kinda creepy.
She's 25 years old and has been working for 20 years. I think (or at least hope) we can get past the fact that many years ago she was younger (as were we all). :) She looks great in these pics and Maxim can be great publicity for an actor. Good for her!
When former child actresses do photo shoots such as this, it's invariably to demonstrate to Hollywood and moviegoers that they aren't kids any longer. Michelle has been trying to establish herself with more adult roles these last few years, but all too often, she's still being cast as a high school aged girl. If this helps her break out of that, then more power to her.
For the record, I'm looking at the whole person, and not just her eyes...
I'm not ashamed to say that I consider her to be very attractive. She's a lovely young woman, though not a single one of those pictures captures that. Awful photo shoot

If this helps her career, more power to her. I think Maxim is one of the stupidest magazines on the planet though. It basically reinforces every male stereotype there is, but I don't hold it against anyone for posing in it if helps them get exposure. It's certainly more respectable than baring it all in Playboy(no offense to Charisma Carpenter)
Those pictures are a bit intense but yeah, the cover one at least tones it down a little bit.
I grew up watching her so it sort of slipped my mind she actually is around my age (actually a little older). I was so used to her playing one of the younger people in a cast where the audience-identifying figures were generally older. (Buffy, Clarissa, Pete and Pete, etc).

As for the movie she's promoting, I didn't know she was in it? She's fifth billed on IMDB but doesn't appear on the poster or in plot summaries so I'm curious how important she is. (Also I feel a little weird that Topher Grace is playing a recent college grad at 32 while Tratchenberg is actually closer to the right age range--Though IMDB says this movie was filmed four years ago.)
I think MT is very attractive, and considering that she's actually older than me I'm not overly concerned about the "little sister" thing. But this picture looks a little too Photoshopped.
They wont load for me using either FF or IE. Maybe it'll load on a different computer
Beautiful girl but, yeah, crazy eyes. The cover picture is by far the best.
Okay, time for Dawnie to be the Vampire Slayer. :-)
Might just be me, but she's reminding me a lot of Flo from Florence and the Machine.

In any case, I'm actually not disturbed by her eyes and since I'm younger than her I'm not getting the little sister vibes, but the amount of airbrushing... yikes. If she wants to be seen as an adult actor now (which she deserves), then all the power to her, but I'm so leery with Maxim that I wish she had chosen a better magazine to be on.
She could have gone less tasteful. She could have gone with Cosmo :)
Would have liked to have seen the pics before they performed the photoshop blitz. And the second one is more than unsettling, it's unnverving. If someone was looking at me like this in real life I would back the hell away, rapidly.
She could have gone less tasteful. She could have gone with Cosmo :)


That is true! I guess I'm just not a magazine person, so I don't have high opinions on them.
I have quite a soft spot for pale redheaded women and Michelle have always been beautiful so the cover is great indeed, kind of like the eyes as well, but I cant get rid of that creepy feeling that Im looking at tiny Dawn in a very wrong way. But then again, both Xander and Willow have been in exactly the same situation.
The extreme photoshop has pushed her into the uncanny valley. I wonder how she feels about the results. I don't know why photo editors feel the need to make women look plastic. She is a beautiful woman as is(yes, woman.)
The print edition of Maxim closed here in the UK a while back, I don't think anyone really misses it. In fact there's a campaign to get these type of magazines to be classified as "top shelf".
Yeah, a part of me always does a little feminist disappointed sigh when an actor I like poses in their underwear but yknow, they have pressure I can't even begin to understand so I'm not gonna start ragging on them, more sighing for the continued inyourfaceness of women as sex objects culture. I wish lads mags would hurry up and die a death. And celebrity magazines generally really. Fucking industry.
Does top shelf mean something other than I thought it did/in the US? I'm used to the idea of that meaning the highest quality liquor. ...Which one would want out of reach of the kids which I assume is more or less the same purpose presumably in that UK meaning. (I think in the US the phrase would be "behind the counter" except I'm pretty sure no one ever does that now and they just have those plastic barriers to block the cover and it's an honor system that keeps younger people from seeing them?

Speaking of, I've always been sort of confused about UK print. Like the "lad's mags" there seem vaguely classier, but on the other hand that may mostly be the ones that get imported to US stores by default are the slightly classier ones and they'd look that way especially in comparison to the spray tanned American covers. On the other hand, isn't there still that Page 3 phenomenon where tabloids (and/or some of the real newspapers?) feature topless models to sell more copies?

Eh, in any case I've never really read the trashier ones and sort of wrote them off long ago since there are a couple that genuinely do have article-based content or can do slightly more responsible/respectable sexualized photoshoots featuring women. Or, like Details, I've never exactly been clear on if they're magazines that are basically in the closet? I can't really tell if they're being equal-opportunity exploitive for gay audiences or if it's supposed to be an envy thing.

While I'd prefer that the actresses that I like get featured in less exploitive photoshoots, I suppose it's probably an important career thing to get some exposure/name recognition and it's something vaguely like a necessary evil they can opt into. And yay for Michelle also getting to use it as a high school vengeance thing.
I think she should have continued to say no...I'd like to see more celebs who don't think they need to do those kind of shoots. I just think Maxim and the other mags are too much about sexualizing women...they need to show they're not just sex objects.
Yeah, not a fan. I mean, I'm all about women having the freedom to express their sexuality, but usually these things seem to be about putting the woman into a sort of pre-packaged, personality-less template of what men supposedly want.

Michelle is lovely, but these photos--with the expressionless face and the major airbrushing--don't seem to have anything to do with her as a person. Which IMHO makes them an example of poor photography.

At least there's still some personality in her eyes ... if people find her gaze unsettling, that's a total good in my book.
Speaking of, I've always been sort of confused about UK print. Like the "lad's mags" there seem vaguely classier, but on the other hand that may mostly be the ones that get imported to US stores by default are the slightly classier ones and they'd look that way especially in comparison to the spray tanned American covers. On the other hand, isn't there still that Page 3 phenomenon where tabloids (and/or some of the real newspapers?) feature topless models to sell more copies?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Back in the 90's Lad's mag's were actually pretty decent. Lots of articles about world adventures the reporters would get up to with a few photo shoots of women in swimsuits or underwear and lots of sports and film news.

Now the articles have pretty much disappeared and the photo shoots are almost porn like.

Page 3 is still around but I've never seen it as seedy like a lot of the lads mags have become.

I used to feel the anti lad mag crowd were overreacting but they have gone from decent magazines to really seedy publications I'd be embarrassed to buy.
Page 3 in The Sun has become a bit of a joke now. The little quote from the model, regarding the latest budget cuts or current events in some war torn area of the world seems like it is trying way to hard.

Speaking of, I've always been sort of confused about UK print. Like the "lad's mags" there seem vaguely classier, but on the other hand that may mostly be the ones that get imported to US stores by default are the slightly classier ones


There is really nothing classy about the "lad mag" here. Nuts is probably the most popular and it doesn't get much better after the title. We also have Zoo, which used to have Danny Dyer writing a column for, who is far from the classiest gent around. He eventually got sacked, when he advised a recently dumped guy to cut his ex, so no one would want her. At least they have some standards, I suppose.

As for the images of Michelle, she's gorgeous and doesn't need to do it, but I don't think the majority will think any less of her for it.
Wow, good on Michelle for landing the cover of a major magazine! Hopefully, she really did enjoy the experience, and it will raise her profile that extra bit more.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home