The Need to PUNCH P*ulo

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,March 09, 2007 10:49 am

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?

Maybe Michelle just IS pretty and a great actress..we shoulnt hold that against her, lol! I dont think they 'prettified' her at all..if anything i think they concentrated on character development. I think Ana was just beautiful without trying to be..and that really is true beauty is it not?

As for Locke..Oo i dont know..i think he's rather dashing..better looking than Jack and some of the other goons..not that id necessarily know being of the other persuasion, but i think ive got a sound eye for these things And Emerson..well, he's beautiful inside..*snugglez Ben *

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by The_abbott,March 09, 2007 10:51 am

surely thats to do with taste.

I don't think Kate is attractive but other men do. I think Rose has a certainly grace to her whilst others will not.

ditto with Juliet, Cindy, Coleen etc..etc..

Some people fancy Ben and Locke. I''ve witnessed it first hand.

But I'm talking about conventional attractiveness. I find Locke far and away more compelling (if disturbing) a figure than any of the pretty-boys, but he wasn't cast with looks in mind, and I think most of the conventionally pretty women and men, personal taste aside, were cast at least partially with a view to appealing to a majority. I do think Ben, Locke and Pickett, for example, are less conventionally good-looking than Jack, Sawyer and Boone, or that Kate, Ana Lucia and Shannon... and I think the casting directors probably knew that.

[*SP*]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 09:54 am

I think casting is always going to take 'attractiveness' into account. But then we all see people in different ways. Take the two 'stunningly attractive' main leads. Personally I find them both repugnant. As someone who isn't bound by conventionality.... I find both males and females attractive...neither Kate or Jack do anything for me but turn my stomach.

Character qualities aside for one moment, Terry and Michael are both rather scrumptious. Yet, I don't think anyone would ever claim they were hired for their sex appeal.

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,March 09, 2007 09:50 am

Yeah that's fair EC and Murg. I think the only person who really had a moan was Bernard and he was so annoying while doing so the writers probably decided against the notion of having characters moan about their situation.

Like other things, it doesn't really make for good viewing - you could liken it to including all the scenes where they go to 'the bathroom' (though obviously they've actually done that with Paulo) - which in my opinion would be boring to watch - like a bunch of people sitting on a beach moaning about their living conditions. I'd much rather they went on Walkabouts in the jungle to be honest.

We don't actually need to see it it could be mentioned in conversation eg someone could say "no Kate's not coming on a great hike today she is missing home too much" rubbish example i know but you get the idea

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,March 09, 2007 10:54 am

Maybe Michelle just IS pretty and a great actress..we shoulnt hold that against her, lol! I dont think they 'prettified' her at all..if anything i think they concentrated on character development. I think Ana was just beautiful without trying to be..and that really is true beauty is it not?

I mean prettified as in casting a pretty actor in a role that didn't demand it. Maybe I'm being overly cynical (though I don't think it's possible to be too cynical about casting directors on primetime TV shows), but I reckon if it was down to two age-appropriate actors on Lost, the choice would go to the most conventionally good-looking. We can't pretend primetime TV isn't massively swayed towards a preference for conventional good looks, but moreso - in the case of Lost at least - among women than men.

[Easily confused]

When it comes to attractiveness I do think men can be attractive without being good looking so if you get a good likeable male character he doesn’t have to be good looking to be attractive but I do find that female character do have to be (from show makers point of view) young, fit and regarded as being pretty by the main if they don’t fit the criteria then their characters either have to be motherly figures or “funny” and most importantly seldom use

The above is not my opinion of how it should be its my opinion of how it is

Its also a very American concept if you compare American shows to British you will see a stark contrast between them I mean look at Eastenders and Coronation Street they are both full of ordinary everyday looking people with only a handful of “lookers”

[haelle03]

OMG how badass is the barbed wire one? I soooo voted that!

[The_other_other]

i agree with murg on this. I find many of the women on lost far too conventionally good looking, not that they arent attractive, its just they seem so obviously there as eye candy that its a turn off. Also ive always been annoyed at the often lack of realism in lost, although i take the point that only realism would be dull, they cant just ignore it. I find it strange for instance that no one in this foreign place has developed any kind of sickness (not 'island sickness', just conventional ones, the ease at which people seem to be living annoys me).

Anyway, on the whole the male characters are more interesting, and thats not me being sexist, its just apart from a few exceptions (Not al, shes a bigger cliche than shannon) the female characters just seem bland, underdeveloped and in some cases poorly acted. I dunno why it is

[Easily confused]

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

Anyway, on the whole the male characters are more interesting, and thats not me being sexist, its just apart from a few exceptions (Not al, shes a bigger cliche than shannon) the female characters just seem bland, underdeveloped and in some cases poorly acted. I dunno why it is

Its not hard for the male characters to be more interesting seeing as how there are so many more of them and they dominate the show

[The_other_other]

Originally Posted by Easily confused,March 09, 2007 11:09 am

Its not hard for the male characters to be more interesting seeing as how there are so many more of them and they dominate the show

true like in real life i suppose, perhaps also a deliberate reflection

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by The_other_other,March 09, 2007 11:12 am

true like in real life i suppose, perhaps also a deliberate reflection

I just think the male dominated world of tv and film making don’t feel there is a need for women to be involved in production unless she is eye candy

[haelle03]

Did i read correctly? Did you just say AL was cliched?! Are you serious?! There are way more cliched people on the show, actually id say all of the follow some sort of cliche and she is definatly not the worst!

[The_other_other]

Originally Posted by haelle03,March 09, 2007 11:19 am

Did i read correctly? Did you just say AL was cliched?! Are you serious?! There are way more cliched people on the show, actually id say all of the follow some sort of cliche and she is definatly not the worst!

al is a cliche, all her characters are the same, so what she plays a badass ex police chick, these days its just as common as a shannon type character (and im not a fan of either). Characters like sun and juliet are way more interesting. Thats just my opinion though

[haelle03]

WEll can you really see Michelle Rodriguez playing some lil sissy?! No, thats why she plays badass roles, i think she one of the best for that type of role.


How can you seriously say Sun is more interesting than AL? I know its all about opinion but seriously, Sun has to be one of the most boring characters to grace TELEVISION let alone Lost.