»Hollywood is a Freak Parade«
|
|||
 *Note: I didn't mean this thread to be this long, but I got pissed off while writing it. Sorry. And also, Tiefling, we all know you love certain movie stars (e.g. Keira Knightley) and you're going to troll this thread I worked so hard on with tautological accusations of hypocrisy, bias, or inconsistency, so just remember I called you on it before it happened.* I actually came up with the idea for this thread when I was trying to think of a way to work in a true fact and drop a name: I once worked on a student film set with an actress who a few years later had a small part in the 2003 film  LOL, I wonder if she'll google herself and read this like IMO new user Francesca Allan did. I hope Catherine does because I mean to compliment her on her looks, although it will be at the expense of the famous movie stars of whom she probably aspires to join the ranks eventually. So this is what I want to say: many people all over the world look at movie stars, whatever country the stars are from, and say, "Wow those people are incredibly good-looking." But it seems to me personally that the whole process of creating a star is a kind of brainwashing of the public by constantly presenting the image of the star on film, TV, and magazines, until people just automatically assume that the star is good-looking. The star-followers say, "This person must be good-looking, or why else would the entertainment industry go so nuts over the image of one particular actor out of the millions in the world?" But I think that's totally backwards. Better to ask, "Why else would the industry go so nuts over a person, other than the fect that they can make money off that person, as the job of the entertainment industry is to make money?" Both arguments have their appeal, but the first argument, is, I think, specious because it assumes that the industry can best make money by promoting people who are good-looking, when in fact they will promote anyone who has a memorable look that people will therefore pay money to see, regardless of how good-looking that look is. In my opinion, it doesn't all come down to "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," because there is no society on Earth in which a person with a horn growing out of the side of their head and three eyes would be considered very good-looking. And that fact itself doesn't mean that a person who doesn't have three eyes and a horn will automatically be considered good-looking. LOL, they might have one eye and three horns. Finally, we also have to consider the possibility that ugly faces are more memorable because they frighten us, while we tend to forget good-looking faces because they are comforting . But back to my point: I've posted on this thread a picture of the famously "good-looking" star Nicole Kidman, and the actress I met who is not yet very famous, but who I thought was very good-looking by typical American standards. And you tell me: who is better looking? I don't know about you, but when I look at the Nicole Kidman picture, all I can think is, "Three eyes and a horn." Her face, hair, dress, body (too pale, needs sun), jewelry, and so on are unattractive. Then check out the picture of Catherine Mangan. She looks nice: nice hair, nice hint of a smile, it's a headshot so you can't see the body but trust me she's very fit, and so on. And the interesting thing is, Catherine was very nice to us, and in fact in the film set I was on, if I remember correctly, she was directed to cut into some latex on her hand with a knife, which was supposed to have been dulled by the effects team but wasn't, and she cut into her actual hand . But the good part was, she didn't scream or make a fuss, at least not publicly. Can you imagine if Nicole Kidman was doing a student film (as an unpaid volunteer, no less) and was given a sharp knife and told to cut her hand and actually cut through the latex into her skin? She would probably storm off the set and make sure the people responsible never worked in Hollywood in the future. However that possibility has nothing to do with whether or not Nicole is good-looking. To me, it's self-evident that she's not good-looking, and really I've never seen a picture of Nicole where she appears very healthy or good-looking. LOL, it's possible there's one out there, but that photo is probably hidden in a booby-trapped Mayan temple, waiting for Indiana Jones to discover it and reveal its existence to the world. And really I have no idea whether or not Nicole is nice, while I do have some idea that Catherine is nice. So maybe I'm biased, but I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. The entertainment industry makes stars out of ugly people because they look distinctive and memorable, rather than natural and normal. So, in my opinion, a lot of fans are in love with ugly celebrities called movie stars who might as well have three eyes and a horn, because the fact that they are being promoted as stars is proof-in-itself that they are ugly. And because movie stars are so memorably ugly, they get treated like little kings and queens, and thus my guess is that in person they become mean-tempered and nasty, like kings and queens usually are. So there you have it in my opinion: the entertainment industry is a factory producing images of ugly, and also mean, people for public consumption. Think about that when you sit down to watch the next big Hollywood film. It's a freak parade, and it wants your money. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgMiscGosh, you are annoying!Hollywood is a Freak Parade |
|
|||
 Maybe it also has to do with their...talent? Music, acting, etc. MindSlave: constantly presenting the image of the star on film, TV, and magazines but to first be "presented", they have to make a difference through their talent. And good looks doesn't cut it like catherine managan showed. So that's another way to look at it besides thinking hollywood loves ugly people. I won't call Kidman ugly. I see where you're going with the whole "ugly=memorable" idea, and it has been used in ads, etc. But I don't think the same applies to..Kidman for example. Or hollywood really. posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: Maybe it also has to do with their...talent? Music, acting, etc. Here is my opinion on talent, for what it is worth: it's fake. Nobody has any talent, but rather some people just work harder than the rest. There are geniuses or prodigies, like for example Mozart, who seem to start doing impressive things at a very early age, but that is totally different from talent, and more than likely it has more to do with genetics than anything else. I had professors in college tell me I was a talented writer, and I would think, "That's flattering, but all I did was work really hard on the paper until my eyes were burning and my fingers ached, and then turned it in. If I had written that paper at five years old, then you might have argued I was a genius, but really talent is just hard work." sangu: MindSlave: constantly presenting the image of the star on film, TV, and magazines but to first be "presented", they have to make a difference through their talent. And good looks doesn't cut it like catherine managan showed. So that's another way to look at it besides thinking hollywood loves ugly people. True but Catherine's not a star (just a working actress) and it's not clear she ever will be a star. And of course there are lots of ways to get noticed besides having talent, like being born to the right parents (Paris Hilton, Michael Douglas) or publicity stunts (Johnny Knoxville from Jackass comes to mind; that whole show was a publicity stunt for him and then he became a minor movie star.) sangu: I won't call Kidman ugly. I see where you're going with the whole "ugly=memorable" idea, and it has been used in ads, etc. But I don't think the same applies to..Kidman for example. Or hollywood really. Personal taste. 
posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Hollywood ppl are ugly b/c they take plastic surgery too far, check this site for pictures:  posted by a |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 h_o_h: And also, Tiefling, we all know you love certain movie stars (e.g. Keira Knightley) and you're going to troll this thread I worked so hard on with tautological accusations of hypocrisy, bias, or inconsistency, so just remember I called you on it before it happened.* Well thanks for thinking of me.  Though, your infatuation is starting to get a bit bizarre.
posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah whatever dude. Tiefling, you're a loser. In case anybody who reads this thinks that I just hate the way women or female celebrities look in general, I would like to point out that I have started threads on this site about four actresses and one newswoman that I find very attractive. The one who appears the best-looking to me out of all of these women would have to be Audrey Tautou, though I have never seen her in a film. IMO → Audrey Tautou IMO → Michelle Pfeiffer IMO → Jaime King IMO → Elisabeth Harnois IMO → Maria Bartiromo posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlave: I don't know about you, but when I look at the Nicole Kidman picture, all I can think is, "Three eyes and a horn." Whose horn?  MindSlave: Think about that when you sit down to watch the next big Hollywood film. It's a freak parade Come on, USA has no royal family, so the celebrities are a substitute. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: Nobody has any talent, but rather some people just work harder than the rest. What the heck? Everyone has the same talent? So George W. Bush could be a brilliant car seller or a brilliant actor? And the only reason that he isn't good at leading the country is because he doesn't work hard enough? MindSlave: There are geniuses or prodigies, like for example Mozart, who seem to start doing impressive things at a very early age, but that is totally different from talent So Mozart was not talented? Or could have been untalented and yet performed well at his age? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: MindSlave: Think about that when you sit down to watch the next big Hollywood film. It's a freak parade Come on, USA has no royal family, so the celebrities are a substitute. Yes but the whole point of a royal family is it is supposed to anchor society by not changing except at the death of a monarch or birth of an heir to the throne. As there is no monarch nor throne in the US, the movie stars are always unfulfilled and take out their frustration on the public by acting like asses. 
posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: MindSlave: Nobody has any talent, but rather some people just work harder than the rest. What the heck? Everyone has the same talent? So George W. Bush could be a brilliant car seller or a brilliant actor? And the only reason that he isn't good at leading the country is because he doesn't work hard enough? Well that's definitely part of it; Bush is lazy and doesn't work as hard as the great presidents did. But you're conflating two things I never said were identical: talent and capacity for success. Talent is determined by hard work; capacity for success is determined by certain indeterminate factors such as environment, intelligence, good health, and even physical characteristics like beauty, coordination, or strength. I tend to define talent as "ability in a certain area," while I define capacity for success as "genetic predisposition to achievement." Some have it and some don't. I personally never had it, nor did quite a few of the greatest figures in world history; Mozart is unique among them because he always did. knn: MindSlave: There are geniuses or prodigies, like for example Mozart, who seem to start doing impressive things at a very early age, but that is totally different from talent So Mozart was not talented? Or could have been untalented and yet performed well at his age? Mozart was talented only in the sense that he worked extremely hard from a very young age, but his phenomenal success at such a young age is indicative of an extremely high level of what I would call capacity for success (you could also call this genius). But much of his achievement had to do with not just innate musical talent, but upbringing as well: Mozart's father was one of the most famous music educators in the world at the time, which meant that Mozart was forced to work extremely hard from a very young age and thus became a great achiever as well as a genius. Even some geniuses (like the chess champion Bobby Fischer) who show phenomenal innate abilities do not follow through on them in the long term due to the lack of a strong work ethic. I used to work for an institute which had a center that studied this kind of stuff: they call it the "study of expertise." All this stuff in this post is just my take on it though; there's plenty of controversy about it. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hollywood has the market cornered on Jews. There are so many Jews in Hollywood, I think I saw an Israeli tank in the background when And
But seriously folks, all kidding aside, ya gotta love that I think he's got a whole Mossad ♣ assassination squad hiding in that nose somewhere!
Watch out Ben, I think you just inhaled
posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I agree with the idea that many of Hollywood's stars are not really all that attractive. The example of Nicole Kidman is one that always comes to mind. When I was in college many of my male friends would comment about how there was really nothing special about Britnay Spears, either. The comment was always that if she were to walk into a restaurant wearing a sweater and some jeans no one would notice her. She is only noticed as being "hot" because she is seen on TV and in magazines half naked all the time. I do not think, though, that being beautiful is what makes or breaks you in Hollywood. Why ever these people become stars is up for debate. It could be because they have "talant" or they work harder than others. It could be that they were just in the right place at the right time, or they have the right connections. However, if someone is being noticed or going to be a star for whatever reason, it is always possible to make them more attractive. You can take any person off the street, give them the right stylist and makeup artist and they are instantly more attractive. Where these ideals of beauty originate is hard to tell. Also, too, there is the celebrity game that is played. Many people who are "famous" are only thought of as so because they play the celebrity game. The person who most comes to mind for me as an example is Jessica Simpson. Really, she has no good music, has been in no good movies, and is really rather unattractive. Why is it that she is so famous? It is because she goes to the hot spots and gets her picture taken so she is in/on the magazines, and on the t.v. shows about celebrities. She causes and promotes scandle around her, such as her very public divorce. On the other side of the coin there are those who aren't really all that famous because they do not play this game. The one that most comes to mind, and I've seen threads about her lack of fame on this forum, is Jennifer Connely. She is a well respected actress who has been in some very good quality films, not to mention that she is absolutely beautiful. She just isn't "famous" because she decides not to live her entire life in the public eye. Those actors who don't play the celebrity game are not out there as much for the public to see and hear about, thus they are viewd as being less famous. posted by Laraimaem |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laraimaem: The one that most comes to mind, and I've seen threads about her lack of fame on this forum, is Jennifer Connely. She is a well respected actress who has been in some very good quality films, not to mention that she is absolutely beautiful. She just isn't "famous" because she decides not to live her entire life in the public eye. You seem to be rather attached to As for me, I think Jennifer Connelly is just about as ugly as, well, if you took Cindy Sheehan's face and reattached the massive tumor she was born with on her left cheek, and then crossed that tumor-face with the rear end of a female baboon in estrous, then you would have some semblance of how ugly Jennifer Connelly is. But I still like posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
dude...if my hand got cut during a movie set i would be pretty darn angrey! isn't that natural?
haha just because your friend didn't get angrey doesn't mean you could judge anyone else if they where to have goten angrey. and with your ugly theory, i never herd of it like that before hahah, wouldn't believe it. but then there are some ugly people in hollywood that i wonder how they got the part:S...mabey its because they are...tal...en...ted? :O posted by Katarina |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 29 August 2008, 01:46 php B.B. |