11 things to remember from ‘America’s Next Top Model’ before the explosive Netflix documentary

Tyra Banks pitched the show as a corrective to an industry that was famously opaque and exclusionary. Early seasons showcased education—teaching contestants about go-sees, portfolios, runway walking and rejection. This initial realism is most evident in Cycle 1: models were sent to real agencies in Paris. There were no dramatised challenges, no gimmicks. It was the unglamourous backstage behind glamour. Cycle 1 winner Adrianne Curry and the rest of the aspiring models were styled in mall-brand clothing and shot in stripped-down editorials meant to mimic actual modelling tests. The intention was clear: this is how modelling works, whether you like it or not. That seriousness would fade as ratings climbed.

From weekly eliminations to themed photo shoots and dramatic judging panels, ANTM created a template that countless shows—from Project Runway to RuPaul’s Drag Race—would later adapt. The judges’ critiques, delivered with high drama and pseudo-professional authority, became the genre’s gold standard.

However, the panel wasn’t just a critique—it was a performance. Self-proclaimed world’s first supermodel, Janice Dickinson, famously delivered harsh feedback to Cycle 2’s Camille McDonald, justifying her abrasive critiques as industry honesty necessary for a career in fashion. Oftentimes, the panel would also chastise girls who refused to do challenges or photoshoots due to personal convictions or faith, calling them “unprofessional” or simply inflexible in an industry that demands adaptability.

These judges, from Banks to Dickinson to Paulina Porizkova, spoke with finality, even when opinions contradicted each other week to week. Contestants were expected to absorb harsh feedback without response. The format—expert judges, public judgment, emotional fallout—became the blueprint for later competition shows.

America’s Next Top Model was ahead of the curve when it came to diversity. Banks loved to cast women who didn’t fit industry norms, such as plus-sized women, girls with diastema and vitiligo; one season was even limited to petite models, while one winner was deaf. Older contestants, trans contestants and women of colour were given national platforms long before inclusivity became corporate policy. Winners like Eva Marcille and Naima Mora challenged industry norms—even if the show didn’t always know how to support them afterwards.

However, producers often framed these differences as a problem to be corrected. For instance, Cycle 3’s Yaya DaCosta was constantly criticised for her “African-ness”, including her reaction to a faux kente hat challenge. Cycle 4’s Michelle, who had impetigo, was treated as a medical spectacle. 

Representation existed, but it came with conditions.

For every iconic image in America’s Next Top Model, there was a concept that should have stayed in the writers’ room. High-fashion editorial shoots sat alongside deeply questionable ideas: racial “transformations” (which happened in two seasons), faux homelessness and trauma-inspired themes that blurred the line between provocation and exploitation. At the time, these shoots were defended as “edgy”. Today, they’re case studies on how not to approach representation.

The makeover episode was must-watch television, but, in hindsight, it was often a consent nightmare. Haircuts were non-negotiable. Tears were expected. In some seasons, contestants underwent cosmetic dental procedures or were pressured into drastic changes under the guise of industry realism. Cycle 6’s Dani and Joanie had to undergo painful cosmetic dental procedures to correct their smiles, for instance. One contestant even had their diastema widened just to make her more “unique”. However, the emotional breakdowns were edited as entertainment, not warning signs.

As host and executive producer, Banks embodied empowerment rhetoric while enforcing brutal standards. Her motivational speeches could uplift—or devastate—depending on the edit. When Tiffany in Cycle 4 expressed emotional exhaustion rather than gratitude after elimination, Tyra framed it as a personal failure rather than a structural one. The moment became iconic—but also emblematic of how authority was enforced through shame. The documentary’s promise to unpack her dual role may be its most anticipated reckoning.

In the early cycles, figures like Janice Dickinson and Twiggy functioned as destabilising counterweights to Tyra Banks. Dickinson’s volatility in Cycles 1 through 4 was abrasive but rooted in lived industry experience; she had nothing to gain from protecting the show’s image, and her critiques (however cruel) often reflected real casting-room logic. Twiggy, who joined in Cycle 5, offered the opposite register: a measured, editorial sensibility shaped by decades of global fashion work. Together, they made the panel feel argumentative, unpredictable and—crucially—not fully under Tyra’s control.

Their departures signalled more than cast turnover. After Dickinson’s firing and Twiggy’s exit, the judging table became noticeably safer and more malleable. Later additions—whether supermodels, stylists, casting agents or eventually social-media personalities—were framed less as independent authorities and more as extensions of the show’s tone.

By the time ANTM leaned into viral moments and shock-driven casting, the absence of dissenting fashion voices was glaring. Without judges willing—or able—to push back, the show’s priorities realigned: less industry instruction, more emotional volatility.

From the earliest cycles, America’s Next Top Model engineered psychological stress as part of its competitive architecture. Contestants were cut off from family, deprived of phones and outside media, filmed around the clock and subjected to deliberately critical judging panels. However, moments of distress were rarely contextualised as responses to pressure. Panic attacks, dissociation and tearful confessions were edited into narrative beats: the “weak” contestant, the “volatile” one, the girl who “couldn’t handle it”. When participants like Cycle 8’s Jael Strauss or Cycle 4’s Tiffany Richardson visibly struggled, the show framed their pain as a test of professionalism rather than a signal for intervention.

Despite its runway-heavy language and industry posturing, America’s Next Top Model rarely produced winners who transitioned cleanly into high-fashion careers. Agencies and designers were often wary of contestants branded by reality television, seeing them as personalities rather than blank slates. Winners like Adrianne Curry (Cycle 1) and Whitney Thompson (Cycle 10) spoke openly about struggling to secure work that matched the show’s promises, exposing a widening gap between televised fantasy and industry reality.

Yet the show offered something arguably more durable than a modelling contract: name recognition. Figures like Eva Marcille and Yaya DaCosta (both from Cycle 3) redefined success on their own terms, moving into scripted television and film, while others built careers in advocacy, beauty or entrepreneurship.

Before ANTM, terms like “editorial”, “commercial” or “high fashion” lived mostly inside casting rooms and magazines. The show translated that language into weekly prime-time lessons, turning judging critiques into catchphrases. “Smize” became shorthand for emotional intelligence in front of a camera. “Too pageant”, “too sexy” or “not model enough” became verdicts audiences learned to deliver themselves.

But the show also normalised more insidious ideas. Weight critiques were framed as professional advice. Masculinity and femininity were policed through styling and posing challenges. Cultural difference was often exoticised, corrected or repackaged as a marketable edge. While ANTM occasionally pushed boundaries—casting plus-size models, contestants of diverse backgrounds—it did so within a framework that still demanded conformity to narrow, shifting ideals.

See more: A fashion insider’s expert advice for building your personal brand

The Netflix documentary arrives at a moment when reality television is being reassessed not just as entertainment, but as labour—emotional, psychological and often unpaid. Practices once dismissed as part of the process are now examined through questions of consent, power imbalance and long-term harm. ANTM, with its global reach and decade-spanning influence, sits squarely at the centre of that conversation.

This reckoning isn’t about retroactive cancellation. It’s about context. What did the show normalise? Who benefited from its narratives? Who absorbed the cost? America’s Next Top Model wasn’t uniquely cruel, but it was uniquely formative, shaping how beauty, ambition and success were framed for millions of viewers.

NOW READ

5 best Korean reality TV shows to watch after ‘Culinary Class Wars’

Gisele Bündchen bows out of modelling: a career overview in pictures

5 reasons why Bella Hadid deserves to be Model of the Year