January / February 2010 issue - first thoughts

I’ve been gone from here for essentially the last couple months. Subscription ran out with the October issue, and sadly, I decided not to renew. Not sure why, other than I was getting tired of being disappointed. The rehashed pictorials, the shorter playmate stories, the double issue. And, perhaps most symbolically of all that’s gone wrong with the magazine this decade – the removal of the PMOY from the cover. As I think I said back in 2003 – if Playboy doesn’t care enough about the PMOY to put her on the cover, than why should I care about the PMOY?

Well I thought I’d give the magazine another shot, so bought Jan/Feb at the newsstand tonight. I don’t like the double isue, but at least there’d be two centerfolds. Sadly, from the briefest of glances, I’m disappointed again.

The back to back centerfold is just terrible. Would it really have killed them to have two totally separate features, with two totally separate foldouts? Thought that was one of the points of getting rid of the staples – the added flexibility that it would provide in layout of the magazine. Is the heavier weight of the gatefold paper really that much more expensive? The girls themselves are attractive – they deserve their own individual features, with all the requisite pages, not being shortchanged like they are.

I always used to look forward to the Playmate Review. Now, year after year, a lack of original photos. I flipped by and saw the 60s pictorial, and was disappointed that it was no different than any other retread pictorial lately. No creativity, just cost-cutting. Tara Reid also did nothing for me. And the cover is just bad, especially for one that will be hanging around for two months. No creativity, no sexiness. Just blank eyed staring in an awkward pose.

Then just flipping thru the letters, I saw mention of Kelley Thompson being all natural. Really? Playboy gave me a free-month’s subscription to the cyber club the other month for pointing out some error to them (Yay for good customer service!!), but when I saw her video, I was pretty sure I saw some obvious implant scars. Guess I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I still think Kelley is damn cute and very GND. But printing letters that I think have obvious misinformation in them, and not correcting the mistakes, just bugs the editor in me.

I’m sure I’ll actually read the magazine in the days to come. Hopefully in the whole it’s better than the sum of its parts. But will I subscribe again? Probably not based on this issue. Bummer.

— In pml1@yahoogroups.com, keyneth2k@..

. wrote:
>
> –K: A “MASSIVE double issue?” I guess it all depends on your meaning of the words, “MASSIVE.”
>
> I didn’t realize PB considers back-to-back CFs, “MASSIVE.”
>
> I didn’t realize PB considers eight pages of gatefold pix DIVIDED up amongst two PMs, “MASSIVE.”
>
> I didn’t realize PB considers eight pages of recycled, thumbnail-sized pix for a 60s retrospective, “MASSIVE.”
>
> I didn’t realize PB considers 204 pages of “DOUBLE issue” from a mag that had upwards of 350 pages in it’s heyday, “MASSIVE.”
>
> Oh silly ME, here I go againnn, expecting more than PB can deliver these days. After all, times ARE tough, things DO change, gotta roll with the punches, right people?
>
>
> — In pml1@yahoogroups.com, “bettestreep2008″ <bettestreep2008@> wrote:
> >
> > Well I just received my digital copy – surprising since I thought it expired last month – and here are my first thoughts.
> >
> > My first concern is whether it is another disappointment like the July/August 2009 issue – and sadly it is.
> >
> > It is only 204 pages long – but this time there are 2 separate centerfolds BUT what many of us were dreading is confirmed!
> >
> > Yep – Jamie and Heather’s CF are back to back and there are only 4 pages for each playmate making it a total of 16 pages!
> >
> > If you want to put both centerfolds up on the wall – you have to buy 2 copies! And surprisingly there is very little full frontal nudity in the pictorials.
> >
> > There is a 8 page spread about the 60s – but it’s just another haphazard cut and paste of pics previously published so I’ll have to read the accompanying text to decide if it’s worthwhile.
> >
> > I can’t say I am overwhelmed with this double issue – but I am still hoping for a turnaround in overall quality by the end of 2010.
> >
> > Fingers crossed.

?benmcdonau