The Need to PUNCH P*ulo

[The_abbott]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 09:09 am

..and 'what' a spark!

indeed

Not quite Shannon standard but a close second on par with Juliet

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by The_abbott,March 09, 2007 10:12 am

indeed

Not quite Shannon standard but a close second on par with Juliet

..and if she had brains (which she might still do) and guts then she'd almost be up there with AL (God rest her soul)

[The_abbott]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 09, 2007 09:12 am

But of the two, I think Paulo is marginally more interesting than Nikki. Every other character's willing to race off into the jungle on daring adventures. Only Paulo doesn't really give a stuff, and while at the moment that seems limiting, it may come into play if someone needs to depend on him in the future and he can't be bothered. I'm not saying it makes him likeable, but I think it gives him more potential than yet another blonde characterless pretty-girl who needs Locke and Sayid to act way out of character in order to give her something to do....

Then I say the survivors are doomed as Paulo when needed wil be too busy playing golf to help them out. At least Nikki will run off to save them.

You said "another blonde" IMO Shannon improved Sayid's character and she never made Locke look stupid. I think they just wanted to show that Nikki is not a dumb blonde.

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 09:04 am

Indeed..he just doesnt 'fit'..Nathen would've fitted in better

Absolutely - Nathan was much nicer to look at as well imo

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Easily confused,March 09, 2007 10:21 am

Absolutely - Nathan was much nicer to look at as well imo

WHilst i wouldnt go that far with regards to the looks of the man yes i do agree that that swine wouldve been a better fit!

[Murgatroyd]

And yet they do keep casting young and conventionally beautiful women (and keeping them conventionally beautiful in a way that wouldn't really be feasible in that setting, lacking make-up and hair-straighteners and the like). I find it hard to believe the main thinking behind this is the need to convince the viewer that beautiful people (that most unfairly maligned of all minority groups.... ) can be clever to. I think they do it because they rather shallowly believe it to be a ratings puller. And it's a problem with the male characters too, but not to the same extent... while in season 1 there was definitely an absurdly high quotient of male supermodels on that 'plane, you don't tend to see the new male characters first and foremost as 'pretty' (Paulo aside, who's obviously fairly good looking) - compare Ben, Tom, Pickett, Bernard and Eko, for example - not conventional lookers, but each with individual characters - with Juliet, Colleen, Ana Lucia, Cindy, Ms Klugh and Libby - some reasonably developed characters among that lot, but first, pre-dialogue impressions are going to be that they're pretty and there's a suspicion that the casting directors feel that'll be enough to carry the viewers' interest until something more substantial kicks in.

And there's a wider age range among the men. Who've we got on that side amonst the women? Rose and the sheriff....

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by The_abbott,March 09, 2007 10:20 am

Then I say the survivors are doomed as Paulo when needed wil be too busy playing golf to help them out. At least Nikki will run off to save them.

She'll be fighting off half of the established cast, in that case, or tagging alone fairly pointlessly on the fringes. That set simply can't carry another gung-ho go-getter.

[The_abbott]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 09, 2007 09:29 am

And yet they do keep casting young and conventionally beautiful women (and keeping them conventionally beautiful in a way that wouldn't really be feasible in that setting, lacking make-up and hair-straighteners and the like). I find it hard to believe the main thinking behind this is the need to convince the viewer that beautiful people (that most unfairly maligned of all minority groups.... ) can be clever to. I think they do it because they rather shallowly believe it to be a ratings puller. And it's a problem with the male characters too, but not to the same extent... while in season 1 there was definitely an absurdly high quotient of male supermodels on that 'plane, you don't tend to see the new male characters first and foremost as 'pretty' (Paulo aside, who's obviously fairly good looking) - compare Ben, Tom, Pickett, Bernard and Eko, for example - not conventional lookers, but each with individual characters - with Juliet, Colleen, Ana Lucia, Cindy, Ms Klugh and Libby - some reasonably developed characters among that lot, but first, pre-dialogue impressions are going to be that they're pretty and there's a suspicion that the casting directors feel that'll be enough to carry the viewers' interest until something more substantial kicks in.

And there's a wider age range among the men. Who've we got on that side amonst the women? Rose and the sheriff....

Take a look at Shannon in 2x01 and 2x06. She hardly looks like shes had her hair straightened or wearing make-up.

The same with Kate. Shes looking like a tramp at the moment

I do agree with Claire and Sun though. The way they look is pathetic considering current conditions now the hatch has exploded they have no shower.

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 09:28 am

WHilst i wouldnt go that far with regards to the looks of the man yes i do agree that that swine wouldve been a better fit!

Nathan was more animated as a character and had been integrated into the show well I think that is the main problem with Paulo is there was no integration he just appeared (he doesn’t acknowledge the other Losties either only Nikki making him less easy to relate to)

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 09, 2007 10:29 am

And yet they do keep casting young and conventionally beautiful women (and keeping them conventionally beautiful in a way that wouldn't really be feasible in that setting, lacking make-up and hair-straighteners and the like). I find it hard to believe the main thinking behind this is the need to convince the viewer that beautiful people (that most unfairly maligned of all minority groups....* ) can be clever to. I think they do it because they rather shallowly believe it to be a ratings puller. And it's a problem with the male characters too, but not to the same extent... while in season 1 there was definitely an absurdly high quotient of male supermodels on that 'plane, you don't tend to see the new male characters first and foremost as 'pretty' (Paulo aside, who's obviously fairly good looking) - compare Ben, Tom, Pickett, Bernard and Eko, for example - not conventional lookers, but each with individual characters - with Juliet, Colleen, Ana Lucia, Cindy, Ms Klugh and Libby - some reasonably developed characters among that lot, but first, pre-dialogue impressions are going to be that they're pretty and there's a suspicion that the casting directors feel that'll be enough to carry the viewers' interest until something more substantial kicks in.

And there's a wider age range among the men. Who've we got on that side amonst the women? Rose and the sheriff....

This is why Michelle R was so good for LOST..she wasnt just a pretty face, she was a survivor..she represented the kind of woman who didnt need make up to look or feel good..which in itself is a good message i think (whether they were going for that message or not). The girl just had spunk, brains and so much vunerability..that was great because we saw her mask it and we saw how strong she was, yet deep down i feel we all knew she was scared as hell..this is indicative of humans in general i feel and it was awesome supreme to see such a female character on screen!

Anyhoo, i digress..

Yes, you make a good point, the producers are perhaps a little too aware of there demographic and what (and 'who') will be a good ratings puller. I mean take Claire Bear for instance..amid all the harshness of the wild she has managed to get a new fringe..how wonderful for her..nevermind the starving baby, huh Of course there are better examples, but there is a case to argue that they are aware of their target audience..who i might add i probably more astute than they perhaps first thought.

I do hope that Nikki isnt just a pretty face, but heck with AL gone we need a pretty face..aslong as weve still got driven and well developed characters like Ana, Eko and Boone..oh wait..

As for P*ulo..well the moment i realised it was him in that terrible cheeseball ad with Nicole Kidman..well i knew then that he was surely only a marketing tool. Though i would'nt describe him as a "Cash Cow"

Bring back Ana, thats what i say..beauty and brains!

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 09, 2007 09:29 am

And yet they do keep casting young and conventionally beautiful women (and keeping them conventionally beautiful in a way that wouldn't really be feasible in that setting, lacking make-up and hair-straighteners and the like). I find it hard to believe the main thinking behind this is the need to convince the viewer that beautiful people (that most unfairly maligned of all minority groups.... ) can be clever to. I think they do it because they rather shallowly believe it to be a ratings puller. And it's a problem with the male characters too, but not to the same extent... while in season 1 there was definitely an absurdly high quotient of male supermodels on that 'plane, you don't tend to see the new male characters first and foremost as 'pretty' (Paulo aside, who's obviously fairly good looking) - compare Ben, Tom, Pickett, Bernard and Eko, for example - not conventional lookers, but each with individual characters - with Juliet, Colleen, Ana Lucia, Cindy, Ms Klugh and Libby - some reasonably developed characters among that lot, but first, pre-dialogue impressions are going to be that they're pretty and there's a suspicion that the casting directors feel that'll be enough to carry the viewers' interest until something more substantial kicks in.

And there's a wider age range among the men. Who've we got on that side amonst the women? Rose and the sheriff....

Very good point

I think they also need more people who are less comfortable with their situation of living on an island with seemingly no hope of being rescued. I mean how many people on here could say that if the survived a plane crash and found themselves on an island that they would just set up camp and go on excursions into the jungle without once complaining about it. (i know a few of the characters have but the main ones have all got stuck into island life without a second thought and it could be argued the better looking they are the more comfortable they are with the situation)

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 10:46 am

This is why Michelle R was so good for LOST..she wasnt just a pretty face, she was a survivor..she represented the kind of woman who didnt need make up to look or feel good..which in itself is a good message i think (whether they were going for that message or not).

But that's the thing... the pretty face was totally irrelevant to that character, so why cast one? Ben doesn't need a pretty face and, no offence to the great Michael Emerson, doesn't have one. Ditto Locke, Tom, Pickett et al. So why did they make Ana Lucia and countless other women so unnecessarily pretty?