men, their wives and Pretty Woman

[KenElevenShadows]

Oh, man, you're killin' me. I don't have a chance with Madeleine Stowe? I really like her earthiness and energy that she portrays on screen. So appealing. The characters that she plays in "Revenge" and "The Last of the Mohicans" is so appealing to me.

[Charlie-brm]

Let's face it, people are susceptible to what they are told is hot, and she got hyped as hot big time years ago. Tell me it's not the same in the music industry. I gotta go with Anifa on this one. A lot of work and Julia looks OK. But it doesn't take much downtime for her to look pretty haggard. There's nothing graceful about her. There are some actresses that just look good no matter what they do to them. eg. Michelle Pfeiffer, Salma Hayek.

[Skip_dup1]

Hey Ken I`m tryin to figure where you`re comin from here-if you walk into the room and ms. Stowe stops in midsentence and stares, more power to ya. I think she`s great, but not cause she`s the girl-next-door type. For all I know, maybe she`s sitting on your lap right now. Congratulations.

[whitefang]

Anifa, I'm trying to think of that movie, too. HAVE been since the first time I saw "Pretty Woman". The only other story I can compare it to is "Pygmalion". For modern times. As a fantasy, it's ok. Julia's done better flicks since then, and Gere's done better before. Anyway, there have been far dumber movies. Think "Never Been Kissed." Whitefang

[Compact Diss]

Pretty Woman was on the SuperStation last night... I watched it (while picking on my Tele) and was thinking the same things. Richard Gere (Edward) didnt even care that he was screwing (and falling in love with) a skanky ho from the street....the only time he even made an issue of it was when his snobbish friend George Costanza made a big deal about it at the polo party. He must have had the "good in her". maybe it was because he was putting the good in her

[KenElevenShadows]

[quote]Originally posted by skip: [b]Hey Ken I`m tryin to figure where you`re comin from here-if you walk into the room and ms. Stowe stops in midsentence and stares, more power to ya. I think she`s great, but not cause she`s the girl-next-door type. For all I know, maybe she`s sitting on your lap right now. Congratulations.[/b][/quote]Skip, I'm just messin' around, although I do find her really appealing. She's not sitting on my lap right now, and me going out with just about any big celebrity is of course pretty slim (especially since I rarely meet them), but hey, my girlfriend's really cool and quite beautiful, and I'm happy! She's not the girl-next-door type, but there's a certain earthiness about her that is really appealing.

[Skip_dup1]

Well, I was speaking more about the type of people they represent, but I get your point.

[KenElevenShadows]

Ah, got it, cool! On a more serious note, I went out with a couple of actresses a few years ago, and if they are at all representative of what a lot of actresses are like, I doubt I would be too interested in going out with more of them. They were both really fun, intelligent, and beautiful and really outgoing and very nice, but they were also really self-centered - not in an egotistical way with these two, but more in this manner in which it appeared difficult for them to understand anyone else's point of view but their own. Also, they both would constantly "work a crowd", as they both made a living from acting and would constantly need to make contacts which would lead to more work. I prefer a lower-key, less-self-centered sort of person, I suppose, and again, I have no idea if these two are representative of actresses as a whole.

[Chip McDonald]

The thing is, a camera lense will do strange things to people, usually not good things. It's very subtle, but there. I would say as a general rule that if someone looks even moderately attractive from multiple angles on television - they're probably very attractive in real life. The exception are faces that are "character" faces, ones which happen to have a balance not based on proportions of the Golden Rule but a lucky combination of features that would otherwise be considered "ugly". Because her face is very angular, flat diffused lighting is going to be unflattering to her (such as in the picture with Pitt). In real life she's probably "pretty"; on camera it's going to depend on lighting and camera distortion characteristics. In a "typical" situation, like encountering her in a supermarket, she's probably "stunning". "Beautiful people" on camera have to be beautiful from multiple angles, light conditions and then survive the lense, and are of a perfection you hardly ever encounter in real life.

[KenElevenShadows]

And to add to that, anyone who seems to be attractive in those candid shots in People Magazine must be really great looking... I know some people who are really photogenic. They're cute in person, and when they have their picture taken, they look really really great, often better than in person. And there's others who are the opposite of that, sort of like how Chip describes it to be.

[Anifa]

Originally posted by Skip: [quote] Anifa-are you thinking of the film `Pygmalion`? mister `Enry Iggins`? [/quote]I'm not sure; it's been SO many years since I've actually relaxed enough to watch television. I just remember seeing something of that nature when I was a kid and enjoyed the heck out of it. I remember it being VERY SASSY, which is why I'm thinking "Shirley Temple." I never really find the time to watch shows anymore; it's difficult just forcing the time to take my children to see prime picks of the new releases that hit the theaters. Too much life to enjoy living to waste it watching the boobtube. Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [quote] I gotta go with Anifa on this one. A lot of work and Julia looks OK. But it doesn't take much downtime for her to look pretty haggard. There's nothing graceful about her. There are some actresses that just look good no matter what they do to them. eg. Michelle Pfeiffer, Salma Hayek. [/quote]I was always envious of Jacquelyn Smith's beauty. Her career with Charlie's Angels was about the extent of her mega stardom; but nonetheless, she was a natural. NOW.... Julia is, by far, too pretty to have ever taken up with Lyle Lovett; GAG, that man is right down HOMELY!!! I've always thought that Lovett caught her on the rebound from Keifer Sutherland. Julia moves in and out of serious relationships too quickly to be healthy, stable, lasting relationships; she'll be divorced in two years.

[Gtoledo3]

Yeah, it's definitely Pygmalion.

[KenElevenShadows]

Jaclyn Smith is still really beautiful. She looks really great in person. I saw her at a restaurant a few years ago, and she is really beautiful in person.

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]The thing is, a camera lense will do strange things to people, usually not good things. It's very subtle, but there. I would say as a general rule that if someone looks even moderately attractive from multiple angles on television - they're probably very attractive in real life. The exception are faces that are "character" faces, ones which happen to have a balance not based on proportions of the Golden Rule but a lucky combination of features that would otherwise be considered "ugly". Because her face is very angular, flat diffused lighting is going to be unflattering to her (such as in the picture with Pitt). In real life she's probably "pretty"; on camera it's going to depend on lighting and camera distortion characteristics. In a "typical" situation, like encountering her in a supermarket, she's probably "stunning". "Beautiful people" on camera have to be beautiful from multiple angles, light conditions and then survive the lense, and are of a perfection you hardly ever encounter in real life.[/b][/quote]Chip, You are very much on target when saying that a camera lens will affect a persons' appearance. I studied theatrical technical performance; focusing on theatrical lighting, sound, props, stage management, and make-up design for three years. Also, I was a student instructor inTechnical Lighting and Design for one additional year; plus I studied the craft of Photography and Film Processing for a while. You can make a person look deathly ill by using cold filters over the lens of cameras or the stage lights themselves. You can make a stage seem like a bright sunny day by using warm filters; filters can be amazing and very result oriented. The angle of lighting, and also the number of lights used per subject, makes a BIG difference as to the depth of visual portrayal. One single light, dead on, will make an image look (as you put it) flat. Effective lighting requires multiple angle lighting to bring forth full facial features of subjects on stage. This is a REALLY intriguing subject for me, but I won't get carried away with it...... [b]Bottom line is; in all the years I studied make-up applications and lighting techniques, the picture of Julia Roberts with Brad Pitt is NOT a product of bad lighting.... She is a masterpiece of EXCELLENT make-up designers and lighting experts in many of her other works!!! Without the expert skill of her make-up artists; Julia's lips are thick and poofy, yet without curvature. [/b] There is a difference between a woman having big beautiful pouty looking lips, and a large mouth with thick lifeless lips. The make-up artist will use a heavy accent liner to outline some curvature into the upper lip, while toning the excess lip beneath foundation (or pancake) making it virtually invisible for the duration of filming; but unfortunately, you can't hide the width behind make-up. [img]http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/0808-eri/roberts6.uli[/img] [img]http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/0757-peo/roberts3.uli[/img] I'm sorry, but her mouth steals the show... Of course, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It's been MANY years since I've been in school, so I may get some HOTSHOT "fresh out of college" KIDS that will contradict my "OPINION" on theatrical application. Had a spin around with some "bigger than God attitudes" a while back; not seeking to stir a can of worms. I just think that Julia Roberts is over rated. There are many actresses that are far more beautiful; some of whom appear to have a very easy going personality as well.

[Charlie-brm]

You obviously know your stuff Anifa. I've read a few heavy books on Hollywood of the 30's (days of contract performers) on up to the 60's and what the actresses were concerned with was could they get the little guy who lit them in their last movie. They couldn't give a shit about who the director was. He could be replaced.

[doc taz]

[quote]Originally posted by Compact Diss: [b] Get it? I don't. Why do women love this movie but don't like our lovely ladies of the night?? :confused: [/b][/quote]Yeah, I get it all right, bub! It's called entertainment... why are you psychoanalyzing this thing anyway? ROFLMAO!!! I don't "get it" either, but I think the reason why the story resonates with most women is for the romantic elements present in this movie. If you love your honey, there's no need to worry. :)

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [qb]You obviously know your stuff Anifa. I've read a few heavy books on Hollywood of the 30's (days of contract performers) on up to the 60's and what the actresses were concerned with was could they get the little guy who lit them in their last movie. They couldn't give a shit about who the director was. He could be replaced.[/b][/quote]Thanks Charlie, I think that if more Touring Bands would seek out skilled lighting technicians, instead of using laser effects and pyrotechniques effects, these guys would realize that an intellectual communication in lighting techniques could easily provide added luster to the performance. There would be less incident of overloading circuits with laser lighting or having lamps crash down from poor mounting and excessive movement, and also there would be no risk of burning the place down with pyrotechniques. An intellectual display of lighting technique that stands out in my mind during my younger years is when Stevie Nicks performed with the Dove in promoting her Belledonna album. The narrow beam of light that came up slowly from total darkness, that highlighted the dove "only" resting on Stevie's hand that was extended in the air, was incredible. As the intro lead into the song, the lights slowly came upon her. With full balance in the lighting; Stevie, the dove flying away into the darkness, and a grand piano were the only things in view of the spotlights (all focused in one circle of light). With the mystic appeal that was given off in the lighting design, I would venture to say there were approximately three to four Elipsoidals directed to form the single spotlight. My thoughts, at the time, we that the designers used at least one red and two or more blue filtered lights to give off the lavenderish, mystic array. I've never witnessed a more remarkable music performance in all my years. As a general rule, one circle of light on a stage will consist of "NO LESS" than three lights and sometimes even more depending on the intended effect. It's one thing to witness intricate detail crafted in lighting techniques while dealing with theatrical and film productions; but it's unique to see a "Band" tap into the true craft of theater. I guess if I could stand to watch Britney Spears long enough to pay attention to the stagecraft, I might appreciate some of the art that has gone into some of her productions.... but I can't get past the NOISE to allow myself to enjoy the show. :D

[Anifa]

double post

[Lee Flier]

Chip, I'm totally with you on "The Horse Whisperer." REALLY twisted concept, and yes it just romanticizes cheating. And yes, if the one doing the cheating had been male, there would have been outrage about it. Very, very fucked up. Anifa, I think the photo of Julia Roberts without makeup is very attractive. I don't know what makes you say she's "plain jane." In fact I much prefer the way she looks with no makeup. The fact that so many people (both men and women) are conditioned to think that a woman isn't attractive or sexy unless she's all made up to look like a ho, is pretty sick. Although it explains why I don't get asked on a lot of dates. :D As for "Pretty Woman," whatever. I don't have a problem with the idea of a guy falling in love with a hooker, but something about the way it was portrayed in "Pretty Woman" was kind of fucked up as opposed to the same situation in say, "Arthur." I think it might have been because Dudley Moore's character, although wealthy, was also shown to be very vulnerable and needy in his own way. There was nothing paternalistic about his relationship to Jamie Lee Curtis' character. The story was more about love changing two people and healing their very human wounds, as opposed to "rich guy teaches hooker how to be a real person and she ends up getting the wealthy prince." :rolleyes: And you notice how in these movies (Pretty Woman, Arthur, Trading Places et al) the guy who falls for the hooker is always rich? Where's the movie about the hooker giving up her profession for a regular Joe, because he's a good man, not because he has money?

[jschmidt]

"Where's the movie about the hooker giving up her profession for a regular Joe, because he's a good man, not because he has money?" * That would be Fox TV's Joe Millionaire. (though the women werent hookers, just publicity whores)

[Anifa]

originally posted by jschmidt: [quote] * That would be Fox TV's Joe Millionaire. (though the women werent hookers, just publicity whores) [/quote]Make me laugh!!! These "REAL LIFE PEOPLE" shows are just about as phony as it gets. I'm so disgusted with the television productions coming out now that I could croak. These scrap productions of so-called entertainment belong in the households where they were generated; buried under a carpet somewhere. What ever happened to script writing, stagecraft, directing, production, performance, and TALENT??? Let's just send a cameraman out to follow some wimpy whiney construction worker around that gets to pretend he's rich; then let him explain what he does and doesn't like about his candidates. Then send the cameramen out to follow the chicks around to watch them squabble over how "they" should be the one......... REALITY CHECK???? This garbage is of the Jerry Springer mentality, and all of it is just about as superficial as it gets. Originally posted by Lee: [quote] Anifa, I think the photo of Julia Roberts without makeup is very attractive. I don't know what makes you say she's "plain jane." In fact I much prefer the way she looks with no makeup. The fact that so many people (both men and women) are conditioned to think that a woman isn't attractive or sexy unless she's all made up to look like a ho, is pretty sick. Although it explains why I don't get asked on a lot of dates. [/quote]I, also, do not wear much make-up at all; a dab of lipstick occasionally is about it. There is just something about Julia Roberts' mouth that bugs me; she fits in along with Mic Jagger and the Dude from AeroSmith. Julia is not ugly, but I feel that her "beauty" is overrated. She is an attractive woman, with or without make-up, due to the way she presents and carries herself. Without seeming gay, I feel that women of great beauty would include some of the following: 1) Jaclyn Smith 2) Cindy Crawford 3) Drew Barrymore 4) Meg Ryan (in a healthy state of mind) 5) Heather Locklear (get rid of the attitude) 6) Demi Moore 7) Lynda Carter 8) Natalie Wood (although deceased now) These, in my opinion, are women that would not need a stitch of make-up to be beautiful. Their facial structure, and natural beauty is in plentiful abundance. All of these women would be beautiful whether they had spent hours with a make-up artist and hairdresser, or if they had just gone swimming and pulled up to the side of the pool with wet hair molded to their head. Of course, some women find Mic Jagger to be attractive; I think he's sexy, but not handsome. It's in the way he carries himself. Now, on the other hand, Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) could get my engines roaring real fast. If everyone thought the same features were attractive, then there would be a whole lot of people left out and left over.

[The Bear Jew]

Erm... yeah. When are we gonna start talking about hookers again? Did you ever notice that hookers won't kiss you? You can't even pay them to do it! What's up with that? I'm just kidding in case you didn't guess. Put anyone on enough magazine covers, TV interviews and movies, and some people will think they're attractive. There are women working in supermarkets, sandwich shops and mini-marts who are as attractive (or more attractive) than Julia Roberts, but nobody thinks much of them because they're not in movies or on TV. Sure, folks will say things like, "Whoa, the chick taking the orders at the McDonald's is fucking HOT!" but they don't get all "stalker-obsessive" about them or lose their minds when they come into contact with them... and yet... The same folks meet Julia Roberts in person and lose their fucking minds. It's very silly. Stardom does dumb things to people. BTW, I never wear make-up, either. Everyone says I look prettier this way.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b] the picture of Julia Roberts with Brad Pitt is NOT a product of bad lighting.... She is a masterpiece of EXCELLENT make-up designers and lighting experts in many of her other works!!! [/b][/quote]Hmm. I respectfully disagree. The shot with Pitt is relatively high key, and because of the way the fill is positioned relative to the key light it made her chin appear to be bigger than it is (as seen in the newer two photos you've posted) and low contrast combined with lip color makes her mouth appear overly large. It's a character face; when she smiles her chin tightens up and that's what she's known for - if she doesn't smile the proportion is wrong. I think in this case because the key light isn't forcing a shadow on the angle of her chin it flattens into her neck line and hence looks wider than it seems to be in other pictures. Like I said, she has to have shadows because otherwise what happens in the immediate area around her face is what demphasizes her mouth - it's rather narrow and has a strong vertical emphasis, take that away and it's more square. For example in the image below, the strong key light forces her chin to be very defined, so you can tell her chin is narrow: [img]http://www.julia-roberts-pictures.com/julia064.jpg[/img] However, I think she does make it a point to always have something of a grin to counter widening the bottom portion of her chin. Hmm. The image with Pitt almost looks photoshopped, I haven't seen any pictures where her lips look that large on the outside ends - unless that the result of a collagen injections... [b]I'm sorry, but her mouth steals the show... Of course, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.[/b] I've always thought her mouth was overly large, but when she smiles it offsets the effect - a character. I also think it's some sort of trend, in that there are some notable examples - Liz Hurley, Sarah Jessica Parker, or for example Angelina Jolie: [img]http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0003/oscar.bios/anjelina.jolie.jpg[/img] The point to the above picture is that there's not a lot of people on the planet who can have probably thousands of pictures taken of them and not have a few "bad". Maybe Cindy Crawford, Victoria Silvstedt, I suppose there are others... I would say Marilyn Monroe, given that there's probably more pictures of her floating around than maybe anyone else, but early pictures when she was thinner are not as "perfect" as later pictures it would seem... blonde definitely suited her. Also, there's not a lot of new "beautiful" faces that don't have *something* wrong with them, from a technical standpoint. If you look at Kathy Ireland or Brooke Shields for example, their jaw line is almost masculine, but it contrasts their other features; there's a trend towards severe exaggeration (for a moment there it was that extreme heroin-addict waif emaciated thing.. yuck), and Robert's mouth is basically her calling card. 40 years ago it wouldn't have worked. Hmm...wow, now how did I just blow an hour scrounging around looking at pictures of pretty women...?

[Skip_dup1]

so anyway, how do I get my profile to stand out more? I look at pix of myself from the side and I`m just mortified, darlings... Anyway, Ken if you`re still hanging out, the thing with your actress friends is really annoying, but it is part of the biz and can be really hard to turn off. Personally, I`m not that much of an extrovert at all, but if I`m in a crowd where people of interest may be hanging out, I try to make a point of not standing in a corner and talking to the same person all night. As a result, I have gotten to know a ton of people whose names I have a really hard time keeping straight. For me it`s never like, `part of the job`, but I`ve had to give up the luxury of finding a post at a party and manning it for hours on end. It`s likely that the actresses you met felt it was necessary to network regardless of the crowd, or didn`t know how to stop. Too bad, in any case. Some of them are really nice people in a tough business. In a lot of ways it`s a two-tiered game. There are many roles that call for a particular type of person, with a particular set of skills. But the bread-and-butter stuff, is, you`ve got the right look, stand here and be furniture. In that case it`s highly competitive. The first one to get their photo on the director`s desk wins.

[KenElevenShadows]

Yes, still here! Definitely agree. It was something that I didn't personally care for, but the odd self-centered thing with these two, the apparent inability to be able to see things from someone else's viewpoints, was what really didn't win brownie points with me. Still, though, it was a good and often fun experience that I don't regret.

[Anifa]

No Photoshop Chip, just presenting them as they are displayed in professional publicity shots throughout the web. If you check the photo properties, you will find that none of the pictures are being hosted on my site; they are being pulled from their respective web sites. If you pay attention to the lips in all of the following shots; amazingly Julia's lips transform into different shapes. These particular shots are not "character images" but rather, they are some of Julia's photo sessions for publicity. I like the shot with the big earrings; the lips are off balance, but the curve is definitely in the upper lip. :-) I don't think that lighting is to blame! I don't want to continue trying to pick this woman apart because she has never done anything to me, but, as a subject to a make-up artist; Julia requires a tad bit of touch up to achieve superior results. She is pretty when she smiles, full scale. Question is, how many people smile ALL the time? [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/julia14.jpg[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/julianew3.jpg[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/julia18.jpg[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/julia15.jpg[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/roberts24.JPG[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/roberts23.JPG[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/julia13.jpg[/img] [img]http://home2.planetinternet.be/verjans/images/roberts2.jpg[/img]

[jeffbayson]

I saw Julia Roberts in an NYC coffee shop about a year ago. She had a ski cap pulled down to her ears, probably to avoid being recognized. She wasn't wearing any makeup. She didn't look like anything special. Very pale and skinny.

[Felix_dup1]

While we're at it, why not throw Night Shift and Risky Business into the discussion?

[Anifa]

Skip, Just in case you were serious about your profile shots, here is a web site that offers descriptive techniques in subject lighting. The over all site is located at [url=http://www.lightingmagic.com/]Lighting Magic[/url] and more specifically centered on facial lighting (Once you reach the web page, click on images to acquire a detailed description of the lighting set up) [url=http://www.lightingmagic.com/sgalgen.htm]Lighting Magic - subject lighting[/url] Here is another site that very briefly touches base on color filtering.. [url=http://www.sgi.com/grafica/synth/]Synthetic Lighting[/url]

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by felix: [b]While we're at it, why not throw Night Shift and Risky Business into the discussion?[/b][/quote]Thanks for bringin' a grin to my chin. I still have Night Shift on tape. Michael Keaton's first movie as far as I know. "We're not pimps. We're Loooooovvvve Brokers." and "That Barney Rubble. What an actor."