This month in Rolling Stone
September 23rd, 2005 -- by Augie De Blieck Jr.
I don’t want to hear any more complaints that ROLLING STONE isn’t a great magazine.
You just can’t say that. You’d be wrong.
I present to you now the proof in LOST’s Evangeline Lilly:
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:52 am
I admit that mag is awesome.
But MEns Helth or FHM suuck.
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 am
I’m still not getting it. They’re a great magazine because they exploit female bodies?
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:12 am
The sound you now hear is any sense of humor being sucked out of the room. . .
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:40 am
I’m sorry — that was a horrible answer. Let me try this one:
ROLLING STONE is not a great magazine because it exploits female bodies.
ROLLING STONE is a great magazine because it exploits Evangeline Lilly’s female body.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:08 am
Call me nuts, but that’s a horrible picture. Standard magazine photo shoot procedure–take a beautiful woman, and apply makeup, lighting, and hairstyling in such a way as to make her look as much as possible like any other pretty model on the stands. Lily on LOST is 100 times more beautiful than she is on that cover. Blech.
September 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 am
Well, I’m not beating any drums over that picture.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:28 am
> I’m sorry – that was a horrible answer.
Don’t worry. We’re used to it with you.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:33 am
Hey, hey — no taking stuff out of context for cheap gags.
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
I think Lilly is sexy as hell usually — LOVE the freckles! — but that picture definitely doesn’t do much for her. Just like with Jackie O., close-ups are her friend, and it was a mistake to not shoot tighter. Heck, just a close-up on her face and eyes would rock.
And given that Rolling Stone (as founded by the ultra-gay Jan Wenner) has fewer than 50 percent of its sexy covers of women, and does a hell of a lot more shots of Brad Pitt shirtless, classic rockers shirtless, Matthew McCaughnehey (sp?) shirtless, and various action heroes shirtless, I’m not sure why anyone would begrudge them a cover that would fit in just fine on Cosmo or Glamour.
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
If it’ll help — there is a stunning head shot with the article that tops the cover image. There’s also a wider shot of the cover image on the web site that works a little better, I think.
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Meh. She reminds me of Erin Moran.