Page 1 of 8 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#53791 - 06/19/02 09:40 AM Jane says...
Masha Moderator
Ching Shih


Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 512
Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Offline
And with this , I'm just about done with Jane entirely. (Thanks to DreadPirate for posting the link in the F-word thread.)

What is it about Jane Pratt and her magazines that make me feel so personally betrayed when she does stuff like this with them? Is it that Sassy was such a profound influence on my teen years? Is it that she's thisclose to getting it right, and then throws it all away to indulge her wierd and scary girl crush on Pam? (Not that girl crushes are weird and scary; just this specific one.)

And then Ms. Pratt is planning to get married, have a baby, and start a new magazine for a 40-and-over readership. I don't know how I feel about this (and I don't have the link to the story at hand). Kivrin's mentioned elsewhere that she's intrigued by this plan. What say you?

Top
#53792 - 06/19/02 10:22 AM Re: Jane says...
hispanic barbie
Ching Shih


Registered: 05/07/02
Posts: 118
Loc: Nashville TN

Offline
Masha- I've been done with Jane for a few years now- the whole thing is sickening. It's amazing what people with money can and will do. I think that's part of her problem. She somehow got sucked into the trap of being famous by association, then became famous in her own, but forgot where she came from in the sense that early Sassy readers liked her because she wasn't a kiss-up to the masses.
That said, I agree with Kivrin on the point that there aren't mainstream magazines for hip women/moms over 40 who could care less about the crap in Family Circle. At the same time I have a feeling Jane Pratt's latest will go the way of Sassy and Jane- great at first but as her head swells the magazine goes to shit. I also think she knows Jane is crappy and with her new 'life' wants a new avenue to celebrate herself with. I bet Jane folds a year after this new publication starts.
Sassy was a staple in my miserable high school years so I know how you feel on that. All I can say about this new one is that since I'm not close to 40, not a mom, and have no desire to read about every nano-second of her pregnancy and baby's being I have no reason to read it, nor do I plan to.

Top
#53793 - 06/19/02 10:37 AM Re: Jane says...
Anonymous Unregistered



(No relation to Pratt or the magazine - please...)

I dunno. While I'm irked that Anderson will be able to add "columnist" to her resumé and I will not, I'm intrigued by the general idea. I think she's a big bubble head and her writing will likely provide oodles of fodder for ridicule and scoffing, from which I will extract huge pleasure.

Top
#53794 - 06/19/02 12:00 PM Re: Jane says...
shameless
Ching Shih


Registered: 03/14/01
Posts: 88
Loc: northampton, ma, usa

Offline
Pammie is writing a column? Ech! Maybe about explaining why her breasts (which she claims are now au natural) are still super-round albiet smaller coconuts? I'm surprised the skin over her breast-plate hasn't torn open 'cuz it looks like it's about gonna. but enough making fun on celebrities. ha! just kidding.
I used to read Sassy in high school and I can't believe that I now find YM, edited by former Sassy girl, Christina Kelly, more involving than Jane. In my opinion, much about Jane is simply the egotistical paper mansion of Pratt's insecurity. A column about her vacation? A fashion spread about her hippie upbringing? A help column? And her annoying self-deprecating cutesy comments...ugh. I kinda suspected she was a true kiss-ass when she fawned over Jason Priestley and the lead guy from Jesus Jones in Sassy. Jane Pratt is another woman that saw a marketing niche in the early 90's for young girls who were "losers" or "geeks." She capitalized on it and now that the "art school" schtick has been done, she's bounded over to the greener (smell the grass, baby) side of the "beautiful people." Not to mention, am I the only one who finds her really boring? From asking female reporters in Afghanistan what beuaty products they wear to woo the natives to constantly gushing about her boyfriend, Pratt has compleately shown herself to be as ridiculous and malleable as an egg of silly puddy, though not as much fun.

Top
#53795 - 06/19/02 12:15 PM Re: Jane says...
Kivrin
Ching Shih


Registered: 06/01/00
Posts: 4604
Loc: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Offline
Here is the other article we were discussing on the F-Word thread: Jane At (Almost) 40 .
I certainly am not interested in reading a moment-by-moment account of Jane's pregnancy either. I would hope she doesn't focus on that too much in the new magazine. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course she will. Sigh. It's kind of a weird idea, actually--
 Quote:
"I don't feel like there's anything out there that celebrates aging in the way that I would," says Pratt.

While I am comfortable with the fact of my age, it's not exactly a cause for celebration...in fact, I really don't like to be reminded of it too often. I wonder if a magazine that focuses on hipster chicks growing older would work at all. Still intrigued though. I think hispanic barbie makes a good observation about the future of Jane magazine. I don't think Jane Pratt will be able to run two magazines successfully. I think she will repeat herself. Oh well. As infuriating as the magazine is at times, I do think there's a huge readership for Jane. I'm not so sure there is quite as large a market for a 40-and-over readership.

Top
#53796 - 06/21/02 02:08 PM Re: Jane says...
Newt
Ching Shih


Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 47

Offline
Why does Jane suck so much when Sassy rocked so much? Easy -- Jane Pratt had very little to do with the editorial success of Sassy. She was involved at the very beginning -- like the first year or two in the late '80s -- but basically was hired at 24 as a figurehead. The publishers figured it would be easier to sell advertisements if the magazine was headed by a young, attractive, bright woman who wasn't too far out of her teen years herself.

After the very beginning, though, she got interested in outside projects like her talk show, and while her name remained on the masthead as the editor in chief, in actuality it was Christina Kelly and Mary Kaye Schilling who were running the magazine. Jane was pretty much always the celebrity kiss-ass she is now.

Jane is a giant trainwreck for me. I had a subscription for its very first year, but couldn't bear to renew my subscription. However, I can't resist picking it up from time to time to see just how bad it's gotten. I'm especially of guilty of this in airports.

Anyway, I can't believe they're relying on Pammie to provide good copy now. What is their obsession with her?

Top
#53797 - 06/26/02 03:26 AM Re: Jane says...
october
Ching Shih


Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 164
Loc: Alberta, Canada

Offline
Never mind. Nothing to see here.

[This message has been edited by october (edited June 26, 2002).]

Top
#53798 - 07/06/02 05:02 AM Re: Jane says...
Bear
Ching Shih


Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 1954
Loc: Dublin, Ireland

Offline
Okay, I think I've finally had it with Jane and its petty celebrity love-in - and in defence of Liz Hurley, of all people. Long time readers of the rag might remember that a few years ago they did a cover story on Hurley. It was the usual over-subjective crap that masquerades as an interview in Jane, complete with pervy comments (by a male writer, who I note doesn't write for them anymore) about the exact shape of Hurley's breasts. Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of La Liz, but I was frigging delighted when a few months later Jane was forced to print a letter she'd written them, saying that they'd attributed things to her which she'd never said, particularly about her and Hugh Grant's sex life, and that she found the entire tone of the printed interview to be totally offensive. The letter appeared with an apology from the editor and an acknowledgement that the tape had been played back and that Hurley hadn't said any of the Hugh-bashing things they'd quoted her as saying.

Anyway, I thought this was brilliant - a celeb who wasn't willing to join in their schmoozathon! Cut to two years later, and here we find them nominating her as both a badass and, more notably, a villain in their "badass" poll for " for loudly and publicly standing by her baby's paternity no matter how much Dad denied it." Of course, he's since been proved to be the father, so it looks like Jane aren't as up on celebrity insider gossip as say, Hello! magazine, but what the hell, a petty grudge is a petty grudge, right? Arseholes.

[This message has been edited by Bear (edited July 06, 2002).]

Top
#53799 - 07/10/02 03:25 PM Re: Jane says...
starbucksweetie
Gráinne ni Mhaille


Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 23

Offline
I read an issue of Jane, and it tries to be hardcore and real, but its not.
Top
#53800 - 07/14/02 08:48 AM Re: Jane says...
Annapurna
Gráinne ni Mhaille


Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 6

Offline
I, too, loved Sassy, and I just recently threw them away a few years ago in a fit of ill-advised decluttering. I still remember the interview with Kurt Cobain, when an as-yet-unknown Courtney Love tagged along.

The whole time I was reading this thread, all I could think about was ths issue of Jane with Katie Holmes on the cover (I picked it up to read during a beach vacation). That is the issue with Liz Hurley's dignified and outraged response to the article printed months before. It was then I realized how shoddy and unimportant "Jane" really was. I mean, here is an interview with a celebrity...Elizabeth Hurley is saying things about much publicized topics (her relationship with Hugh, their breakup...) that she's never said before, revelations, if you will, and nobody thinks to play the tape of the interview to fact check?

Top
Page 1 of 8 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Masha 
Hop to: