This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
There's plenty of actors that aren't really that good looking and are still pretty damned talented. Woody Allen, Whoopy Goldberg, Danny Trejo (Ok I'm not a woman therefore I'm biased here, some women may consider him incredibly hot) Morgan Freeman, and a rather long list is there, of people I don't consider particularly attractive, yet they're very talented in what they do.
You mentioned one woman and she is a comedian.
But still you're bringing things to "attractiveness" which is a subjective quality. What I'm interested in is variety. The women and men you meet in your day to day lives vary massively in their appearance. It would be nice for media to reflect that more than it does right now I think.
That is exactly what I said.
People are varied, some look cute, some look plain, some look offputting, some look hot. There's plenty of looks out there, and while the movie industry used to hire actors based on skill (Which ensured a diverse pool of faces) today they do so on appereance alone.
I know I only mentioned one woman but I can mention more if you like, from those days of old when hollywood actually hired based on talent rather than looks. Carol Burnett was (to me) a plain looking woman. Not ugly in any way, but she's certainly not gonna be winning any beauty pageants. And she was an AWESOME actress. Christopher Loyd is also not an attractive man, yet he's AWESOME.
But nooooo today its all pretty faces, sculpted bodies, and nice racks. Who cares if they can't act for crap? as long as they're easy on the eyes, they're hired. This is my main beef with the movie industry these days. If you're not pretty enough by their standards (Which are pretty strict, and narrow) then you're out. And reversely, if you ARE pretty enough to meet or surpass their standards, you're in, even if your quality as an actor is FAR below everyone else.
That's just not right.
I can totally see Sucker Punch becoming a cult classic in the future, the same way as several lame movies from the 70s and 80s did. I mean Suburban Commando is a TERRIBLE movie, but I love it, its so bad its good, and its clished cheesy attempts of humor are hilarious to watch.
Who knows, give it another 10 years and I may just warm-up to sucker punch and regard it as a terrible movie that is still entertaining, the same way I do with several classics like 1995 Judge Dredd, Suburban Commando, and a few othersI think it's just too full of the cliches to ever hit the cult classic point.
so are many of the 60s 70s and 80s corny action movies and B-movies. That didn't stopped them from becoming cult classics.
On its on merits, "Attack of the 50th foot woman" is a horrible movie, but its a classic today.
Post by
Gone
It is when most of the people haven't even seen the movies. And frankly, they aren't as bad as people claim they are. They are mildly !@#$ty romance movies, designed for teenage girls. It became a best selling series, and thus it became trendy to #$%^ all over it. At this point people %^&* talking Twilight out of nowhere is more annoying than the Twilight movies themselves.
Frankly there are a lot of just as terrible series that get less attention than Twilight.
I have to say, I did see the first Twilight movie with my girlfriend and her teenage younger sister. The plot leaves a lot to be desired. The cinematography was nothing special. The dialogue and the acting were atrocious. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have no chemistry, mostly because Kristen Stewart has no soul, judging from her expressions. It's also very patriarchal-sexist, in the sense that Bella is portrayed as a helpless damsel in distress, not helped by Kristen Stewart being unable to form any type of facial expression that doesn't fit that mould.
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it's not as horrendous as people make it out to be. And again, it's directed at teenage girls. And i still say that hating on it has become trendy, which is why most people do it. Eragon and Last Airbender were just as bad, and they haven't garnered anywhere near the amount of hate that Twilight does.
Post by
Squishalot
My teenage girlfriend at the time wasn't impressed. I haven't seen either Eragon or the Last Airbender, so I can't / won't comment on either of those.
Post by
Gone
I meant young teen, like 13-14.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
so are many of the 60s 70s and 80s corny action movies and B-movies. That didn't stopped them from becoming cult classics.
On its on merits, "Attack of the 50th foot woman" is a horrible movie, but its a classic today.
Eh, the biggest problem with the movie is that it takes itself seriously, even as it has no idea what it wants to be, which will more then likely hold it back.
I meant young teen, like 13-14.
That's not really a defense; it's still a horribly written book series, a horribly crafted movie series that is full of ideas that should have been wiped out 100 years ago....and that's leaving out the whole pedophile/rape angle that exists there for the shapeshifters....
Post by
asakawa
Also in "regular" life, I think guys who are considered not attractive can still rely on personality or intelligence, when again, misogyny strikes, women have to be considered attractive or they're done, because women clearly don't have any personality or intellect.
I'm pretty sure that perspective is altered heavily by your own experience of regular life. I rather think we all feel like that ourselves at some time. However, the sort of objectivist attitude you're describing (irrespective of gender) doesn't strike me as a big issue because if you are unsuccessful in pairing with someone who isn't able to appreciate your personality then you're lucky to avoid an idiot. I understand that this might not seem particularly heartening for anyone who has had a string of rejections but it's still true.
I liked the father in Twilight. His mustache was excellent.
Post by
Rankkor
It is when most of the people haven't even seen the movies. And frankly, they aren't as bad as people claim they are. They are mildly !@#$ty romance movies, designed for teenage girls. It became a best selling series, and thus it became trendy to #$%^ all over it. At this point people %^&* talking Twilight out of nowhere is more annoying than the Twilight movies themselves.
Frankly there are a lot of just as terrible series that get less attention than Twilight.
I have to say, I did see the first Twilight movie with my girlfriend and her teenage younger sister. The plot leaves a lot to be desired. The cinematography was nothing special. The dialogue and the acting were atrocious. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have no chemistry, mostly because Kristen Stewart has no soul, judging from her expressions. It's also very patriarchal-sexist, in the sense that Bella is portrayed as a helpless damsel in distress, not helped by Kristen Stewart being unable to form any type of facial expression that doesn't fit that mould.
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying
it's not as horrendous as people make it out to be
. And again, it's directed at teenage girls. And i still say that hating on it has become trendy, which is why most people do it.
Eragon and Last Airbender were just as bad, and they haven't garnered anywhere near the amount of hate that Twilight does.
There's a key difference.
Eragon and Last Airbender were horrible movies, but everyone admitted they were horrible, you could count with one hand how many people actually liked those movies. Same can be said about a huge number of stinkers like Dungeons&Dragons, and the first Final Fantasy movie (Spirit Within).
HOWEVER, they differ from twilight because NOBODY DEFENDS THEM. They had a target audience, and said target audience hated it. And everyone else hated it.
Twilight however, had a target audience (teen girls) and they love it, even when everyone else hates it. Which is why it gets all the more hate. Its hard to grasp how someone could possibly like something that bad. And this is coming from someone who actually had to endure the first movie (never again T_T)
Post by
Adamsm
Same can be said about a huge number of stinkers like Dungeons&Dragons, and the first Final Fantasy movie (Spirit Within).Um...I enjoy both of those; Spirits WIthin is a good sci-fi movie in it's own rights, and D&D number one falls under so bad it's good.
Post by
Gone
That's not really a defense; it's still a horribly written book series, a horribly crafted movie series that is full of ideas that should have been wiped out 100 years ago....and that's leaving out the whole pedophile/rape angle that exists there for the shapeshifters....
Don't even try using the pedo thing, Buffy was awesome and that series faced the same question.
I'm not defending the series, just saying that people hate on it more so than it (or any movie) could ever deserve. The way people would act you would think that the movie could give you eye cancer just by watching it.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Eragon
Oh man, did they screw up on that one.. Not only did the movie not feature several important parts for the story (I think they just removed dwarves entirely. Like, wtf?), the actor playing Eragon looked like a huge prettyboy and acted just like it. The ending was pretty cringeworthy too.
Post by
Gone
HOWEVER, they differ from twilight because NOBODY DEFENDS THEM. They had a target audience, and said target audience hated it. And everyone else hated it.
Twilight however, had a target audience (teen girls) and they love it, even when everyone else hates it. Which is why it gets all the more hate. Its hard to grasp how someone could possibly like something that bad. And this is coming from someone who actually had to endure the first movie (never again T_T)
That was part of my point. People hate the movie more because it became popular rather than how bad it was. People defend Joel Shumacher's Batman & Robin too, which may have been one of the worst movies of all time, but it hasn't become as much of a meme as Twilight.
Post by
Adamsm
Don't even try using the pedo thing, Buffy was awesome and that series faced the same question.Um...what? A adult male imprinting on a baby girl, and will be raising it to be his perfect little wife, who if she disagrees with him, he will beat her...oh yeah, that was in Buffy....
I'm not defending the series, just saying that people hate on it more so than it (or any movie) could ever deserve. The way people would act you would think that the movie could give you eye cancer just by watching it.
It does kill Brain Cells though, same as the book.
Also while the "pedo" thing can be funny to joke about with vampires, Edward is for all intent and purposes 17.I'm talking about the shapeshifter, not the vamp.
Post by
Gone
Um...what? A adult male imprinting on a baby girl, and will be raising it to be his perfect little wife, who if she disagrees with him, he will beat her...oh yeah, that was in Buffy....
Not to that extreme but it was there. Angel had sex with Buffy when she was 16 and he was 250, Cordellia banged Connor a few days after she was changing his diapers. There was other weird sex stuff too.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Nothing as bad as what is in Twilight...which includes one of the shapeshifter's nearly ripping off the face of his imprinted lover for making him angry, and she's suppose to be alright with that, since he 'loves' her(from what it sounds like, this imprinting thing is a one way street).
Post by
Rankkor
Same can be said about a huge number of stinkers like Dungeons&Dragons, and the first Final Fantasy movie (Spirit Within).Um...I enjoy both of those; Spirits WIthin is a good sci-fi movie in it's own rights, and D&D number one falls under so bad it's good.
Meh, Mileages may vary.
Spirits Within was a snooze-fest. I had to drink 2 cans of energy drinks to keep myself awake on them because I was falling asleep through and through. Plus they overdid the whole "every strand of hair is animated individually" because they made every character (Specially the protagonist) jerk their head over and over and over just to demonstrate their "amazingly animated hair". It ended up looking stupid.
And as for Dungeons&Dragons, asides from Jeremy Irons
FABULOUS OVER THE TOP LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGE HAAAAAAAAAAAM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACTING
(
atatatatatatatatata
) that movie was a disaster from start to end. It was a wayans brother in it, the fight sequences were HORRIBLE (seriously, power rangers has better choreographed battles than that), the second in command of the big bad was wearing bright blue lipstick (seriously, WHAT.THE.F..............) the plot made no sense, it had NOTHING to do with Dungeons&Dragons, the special effects were terrible, the makeup was equally bad, the acting was atrocious, the casting was dreadful (again except for Jeremy Irons, that man just can't screw up :P even when he tries).
That is one horrible movie, the only reason I've never thrown it away (and never will) is because of Jeremy Irons
alone
.
Post by
asakawa
There's plenty of actors that aren't really that good looking and are still pretty damned talented. Woody Allen, Whoopy Goldberg, Danny Trejo (Ok I'm not a woman therefore I'm biased here, some women may consider him incredibly hot) Morgan Freeman, and a rather long list is there, of people I don't consider particularly attractive, yet they're very talented in what they do.
You mentioned one woman and she is a comedian.
But still you're bringing things to "attractiveness" which is a subjective quality. What I'm interested in is variety. The women and men you meet in your day to day lives vary massively in their appearance. It would be nice for media to reflect that more than it does right now I think.
That is exactly what I said.
People are varied, some look cute, some look plain, some look offputting, some look hot. There's plenty of looks out there, and while the movie industry used to hire actors based on skill (Which ensured a diverse pool of faces) today they do so on appereance alone."Cute", "plain", "offputting", "hot" - you're still focussed on attractiveness. Don't you see that this is the issue?
I know I only mentioned one woman but I can mention more if you like, from those days of old when hollywood actually hired based on talent rather than looks. Carol Burnett was (to me) a plain looking woman. Not ugly in any way, but she's certainly not gonna be winning any beauty pageants. And she was an AWESOME actress. Christopher Loyd is also not an attractive man, yet he's AWESOME.
But nooooo today its all pretty faces, sculpted bodies, and nice racks. Who cares if they can't act for crap? as long as they're easy on the eyes, they're hired. This is my main beef with the movie industry these days. If you're not pretty enough by their standards (Which are pretty strict, and narrow) then you're out. And reversely, if you ARE pretty enough to meet or surpass their standards, you're in, even if your quality as an actor is FAR below everyone else.
That's just not right.
I don't buy that Hollywood of yesteryear was
in any way
better in this regard. It's the same as reminiscence, you have a larger pool to draw from and are finding more anomalies to pull out of it. Also, standards are very different so we might look back at Donald Sutherland and think, "Wow, he looks weird" but that's not necessarily how he will have been viewed at the time.
You just listed two more comedians. These are people who are hired for their ability to appear ridiculous. Some are then able to go on to do "real acting" (yes this is a silly thing to call it when comedy acting is tough) but it's easier to find or create a vehicle after achieving a level of fame.
The point is though, removing outliers what are we left with? Was the 70s and 80s a better place for a wider variety of appearances? No, absolutely not. We just remember the really good actors now and forget the ones that were hired for appearance only.
Post by
Gone
Nothing as bad as what is in Twilight...which includes one of the shapeshifter's nearly ripping off the face of his imprinted lover for making him angry, and she's suppose to be alright with that, since he 'loves' her(from what it sounds like, this imprinting thing is a one way street).
That is not as weird as Buffy dating a guy that tried to rape her, raped and tortured other teenage girls literally to death, had sex with corpses, and tried to kill her and her family on several occasions.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.