I'm always amazed that things like this are considered newsworthy. Recently Britney Spheres did an ad for a new perfume for Elizabeth Arden's Believe scent. And no sooner than the shoot was done, rumors were flying that it's not Spear's body shown in the ad.
Now granted, the trademark blond locks are fake, and the thin arms and tight stomach do tend to look like an archive shot from several years back, but hey, I'm an artist by trade and here to tell you that a LOT can be accomplished with some creative photo shop work.
For those who really prefer to believe that this isn't Spears at all, while doing the shoot with OK! magazine, it is confirmed that she bolted from the set for a short timee, during which Cayli Cavaco stepped in so that the photographers could get the lighting right. But a rep from Elizabeth Arden released a statement saying that Cayli was only on the set as a wardrobe assistance and was used only as a stand-in while Spheres was off set, to get the lighting set correctly.
oooookay. My question is ... who the heck cares if it's really Spear's body? For crying out loud people, it's advertising - something meant to stimulate interest and generate sales. And everyone with a brain knows that the entertainment world is smoke and mirrors. Things are RARELY what they seem.
False advertising some scream. I say whatever. Elizabeth Arden isn't doing anything different than any other advertiser or mag cover or ad in the world. I mean do we really believe that all the celebrities we see in these publications actually look THAT good?
Now granted, the trademark blond locks are fake, and the thin arms and tight stomach do tend to look like an archive shot from several years back, but hey, I'm an artist by trade and here to tell you that a LOT can be accomplished with some creative photo shop work.
For those who really prefer to believe that this isn't Spears at all, while doing the shoot with OK! magazine, it is confirmed that she bolted from the set for a short timee, during which Cayli Cavaco stepped in so that the photographers could get the lighting right. But a rep from Elizabeth Arden released a statement saying that Cayli was only on the set as a wardrobe assistance and was used only as a stand-in while Spheres was off set, to get the lighting set correctly.
oooookay. My question is ... who the heck cares if it's really Spear's body? For crying out loud people, it's advertising - something meant to stimulate interest and generate sales. And everyone with a brain knows that the entertainment world is smoke and mirrors. Things are RARELY what they seem.
False advertising some scream. I say whatever. Elizabeth Arden isn't doing anything different than any other advertiser or mag cover or ad in the world. I mean do we really believe that all the celebrities we see in these publications actually look THAT good?
Well duh! Hang out at Disney or Universal for a summer. You're bound to see a celebrity or two pass through with their family. And what will you say when you see one? Same as I have ... you'll turn to the person next to you and say "hey doesn't that look alot like (insert name here) only not near as good?"
It's the job of photographers and film makers to make people look good, to remove year and pounds so that what the public sees is the "ideal" shape and form of the person. It's called advertising. No real shockers there.
Point is, what do you think about advertisers, film makers and the like using body doubles? Does it offend you or do you even care?
Point is, what do you think about advertisers, film makers and the like using body doubles? Does it offend you or do you even care?
Picture from article at http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00010614.html
4 comments:
I don't think that much about them. I know they're touched up and flaws are removed. That said,it will be my job to make my daughter understand that no BODY is perfect. I personally give big Kudo's to Haynes for using the more realistically proportioned women in their underwear commercials. I know they have to touch up too because stretch marks don't sell. LOL It's all about making the product appealing to the public.
Truthfully, I think the whole concept of perfect body, pefect hair, perfect everything is a disservice to society when it is perceived as reality. Unfortunatley, some people cannot make that distinction.
Isn't it the fact we ARE different that makes life exciting and fun?
Whatever happened to being yourself and not being one of the herd? What kind of message does this convey to our kids? And the whole celebrity aspect is beyond out of control. Are there really people who care what celebrities are doing every second of every day?
And as the largest sector of the US population ages into their 40s and 50s won't advertising be forced to age?
While I understand the concept of dressing the product, I'm thinking technology is going to no longer need the real celebrity and we'll be emulating cyber creations and then we'll really be unable to live up to those standards. (g)
I'm with you Ci, who gives a rats...? I could care less what Brit does or goes or if it was really her. Its really not going to influence my buying the product.
What influences my decision is, need. The perception that a person must be skinny, and beautiful to be attractive is hurting the self esteem of women in general.
Personally, I don't care if they are their bodies are theirs or not. I usually don't look at the ads for more than a second or two just to see what it's about.
I'd like to see someone of substantial size in an ad now and then to let people know that we aren't all a size 2. Let's face facts here real women have curves, but it's not shown in advertising. I just wish that people wouldn't make such a big deal about being super thin because it's not good on the kids these days. It also make those of us that are on the large size to feel like we are outcast to society. But that's just my view of it.
Post a Comment