Superficiality Thread

Tools    





It would be a petty way to approach film-viewing on a regular basis, that's for sure.
I don't know who really goes around looking at every movie and thinks, "I will only watch this is the actors are really attractive" but I honestly don't care if someone does. I mean, of course if someone I knew was acting that way and I wanted them to stop, it might drive me crazy, especially if I wanted to show them something else. But I don't think badly of the idea of doing it at all. If that's your thing, there's nothing really wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Deadite
But it would be laughably juvenile to focus on superficialities in a film that clearly is intended to have depth.
It might be interesting, though, and worth analyzing that way.



if you want to watch a movie because of an attractive actor, then fine. that's your problem for being so superficial and shallow. just don't pretend like it has anything to do with the quality of the movie, because it doesn't.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

How can you say that? EVERY movie out there -- there's no quality or nothing special about movies because of the actors' physical appearance?

Totally wrong.

Totally wrong.

That is absurd. A movie quality's is not complete without judging everything, including the actors and their appearance. You cannot just erase that or ignore it. It's there in front of you. Movies are NOT for the blind.

I say the appearance of an actor, including attractiveness, is as important as everything else. Visual data can have merit in all ways that are possible. And I dare say that attractiveness can even be influential in how well received a movie is and how critically acclaimed it is, even if these qualities are ignored, not spoken of, or you don't even realize it's effect on you. I believe we can be subliminally influenced by factors like this.

Originally Posted by Frightened Inmate No. 2
there is something inherently wrong with believing that all a director has to do is cast an attractive person to redeem their film, and it's frankly insulting to the medium of film as a whole.
This is ridiculous.

WHY do we make films with people in them, then?

Why do we make people the subject of films?

We could very well make movies about dirt, trees, the sky, food, chairs, trains, cars, whatever, and not put people in them. But no -- we make movies and we put people in them.

And it's not just because of drama and because of storytelling -- it's also because we want to look at people. We want to see different types of people. We want to see people that are pleasing to the eye. It's why we have celebrities, it's why we worship famous people, it's why we have Hollywood, it's why we have glamor and style and everything. We take the looks of people very seriously. It's why there are makeup crews and everything, stylists, personal trainers, you name it. Films are not just something for the ugly and for non-human representation. If you want that, read a book -- and even then the stories are filled with people that you must IMAGINE and see in your mind's eye.



Well, I personally don't rely on brainpower to recognize superficial aesthetically-pleasing stuff about a film. It's just viscerally evident. If it fits the film and I like it, it's appreciated. Otherwise it's not important to me in the first place because I'm watching "deep" movies for plot, story, dialogue, characterization and theme evaluations foremost. I'm not going to watch Bergman primarily for the attractiveness of his actors, but sure it could be a secondary consideration...
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



why is this thread making me think of the movie Shallow Hal

Why is thin Gwyneth Paltrow shown completely on that poster, while Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit is merely reduced to a shadow?

Possibly because putting thin Gwyneth Paltrow on the poster would get more people to see the movie?



For a movie all about a message, the poster for Shallow Hal has no balls.



yes, hollywood is shallow. yes, people are shallow, and hollywood will do everything to exploit that. everyone knows that. it doesn't make it okay.
Well, I 100% disagree. I think it's fine.



Do the terms "strawman" and "ad nauseam" mean anything to you?
Not really and I don't care 'cause this is my superficial thread.



I am taking back superficiality and giving it power again. That's been the biggest problem with this whole forum for a long time -- there's been no superficiality. Everyone ignores factors like this -- factors that are extremely important when it comes to movies and life in general.



I am taking back superficiality and giving it power again. That's been the biggest problem with this whole forum for a long time -- there's been no superficiality. Everyone ignores factors like this -- factors that are extremely important when it comes to movies and life in general.
That's not true. You've been a vital superficial part of this forum for ages.



Not really and I don't care 'cause this is my superficial thread.
Saw that one coming.
__________________
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson



That's not true. You've been a vital superficial part of this forum for ages.
And I'm very proud of it.

And obviously I've been of help to people because they did crown me #1 Top MoFo.