CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 3

post #101 of 4805
Thread Starter 
There is that, but the complaints regarding the costume rarely focus on how she's drawn in it. I'm not anti-pants or whatever, but I have an appreciation of the intent behind the classic costume and it's not difficult to see how the character conflicts with as well as compliments different strands of feminist thought.


I say all of that to say: fuck Zack Snyder. I hate that he of all people will have a hand in her first foray to the big screen.
post #102 of 4805

oh... NO...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/grownups-pay-big-bucks-attend-nyc-adult-preschool/story?id=29701836

 

I really kinda wanted to start a White Fragility thread for this (despite it being clear that not everyone who goes to this thing is white), but decided to just put it here.

post #103 of 4805
Thread Starter 
We are all going to make for terrible old people.
post #104 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

There is that, but the complaints regarding the costume rarely focus on how she's drawn in it. I'm not anti-pants or whatever, but I have an appreciation of the intent behind the classic costume and it's not difficult to see how the character conflicts with as well as compliments different strands of feminist thought.

I want to know when wearing a skirt became such a measuring stick for poor battle effectiveness and when tights became an authentication for masculinity...


f66313a5e020f377de6d82c337f315df.jpg

men-in-tights.jpg


braveheart03s.jpg

3800401-xena-1.jpg


Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(film_soundtrack).jpg

Yeah, I rrealize the last one subverts stereotype.
post #105 of 4805
Ye gods, I'd forgotten that period in the '90s where movies had more bands than actors getting billing on the posters.
post #106 of 4805
Though that last one IS a cover for a soundtrack album.
post #107 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

There is a tendency to read minority characters (or just stuff that passingly relates to a group) as representing a movie's attitude to the minority group as a whole.

It's a double edged sword because yeah, there's often value in doing that, especially if there's other stuff in the movie to support the idea that a certain attitude is being presented. But the other side is if you get too self conscious about it and deliberately balance your minority characters against negative stereotypes, you risk dehumanising them by not letting them just be flawed, messy people like everyone else.

I probably should've put this in the thread in question, but I was thinking about this when a poster here was going off on one about the GTA games reinforcing black stereotypes by having a black lead character, and how they should've gone against the grain and made him a digital computer hacker or something (nevermind that it would turn into a completely different game).

Now admittedly I haven't played GTA5 so can't say much about the representation in that game, but I have played all the others and it strikes me as weird to get up in arms the second you have a black character doing the *exact same stuff* everyone else has always done in those games. Isn't it more important that (like in San Andreas) the characters are halfway well written, with distinct personalities etc than just having them be model reverse-stereotypes?

 

 

I think that's the minefield that a progressive filmmaker walks into when creating minority characters - if you have a flawed, fully formed character, you run the risk of some uptight "ZOMG this reinforces negative stereotypes about (insert minority) blah blah blah." 

I think in many cases, filmmakers may just avoid the fray by saying "well, I don't want to risk the backlash if I do the wrong thing" and we end up with everything whitewashed. Because who wants to maybe stick their neck out on a small detail only to get punched in the jaw over it? 

 

The flipside is that movies can go in with the mindset of "inclusion" and it can come off as pandering. 

 

 

I'll admit it's a fine line, as I'm middle class, and my friends (and family - my cousin is black) are middle class, whatever their race; but if you start talking to them about non-superficial subjects, there's definitely a differing view on life. 

post #108 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

.....So when my friend was telling me about his horror at GAYS KISSING ALL OVER TV SCREEN, all I could think of was, "Dude, you're shitting on someone in my family. And just being shitty."

 

However, my being confrontational wouldn't have changed his mind (his objections are rooted in religious belief). And, despite this being your (the reader of this post) only glimpse of him, I assure you he's not a monster or dick or awful human being (quite the contrary). In addition, while this family member had come out to me, I wasn't sure how they would feel if I outed them in the context of this conversation, and I wasn't sure how I felt about using them as a potential stick to beat my friend with.

 

 

 

Sometimes it's fine to duck the RIGHTEOUS FIGHT. I'm sure you can table this for a different time, perhaps. 

 

 

One thing that is often forgotten is that the strongest glue ever in racism/etc is the view of people as "us/not us"; oftentimes you see people who "hate fags/dykes" who are fine with family members/friends who are homosexual (paging Mr Cheney....); how is this possible? Because instead of being some vague "other" they are "US." And sometimes that identifier of "family us" is stronger than that of "straight us." 

 

Not sure of your friend's relationship to your family member, but it is possible that having an "US" person of his be homosexual may sway him. Or he could be like my ex-m-i-l; my ex wife's cousin is gay, and got married last summer. She went to the wedding, and is friendly toward's gay cousin-in-law; yet she remains a closed-minded, bigoted, small-town Midwest person.* 

 

 

 

 

* - nothing against small-town Midwesterners, but you'll hear shit about niggers, illegal aliens, kikes, Mooooslims....which I guess if your negative opinions were formed by experience that's one thing; when they're formed by Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, well, I tend to tell them to have a nice hot cup of STFU. Or not, depending on the circumstance. 

post #109 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

 

One of the things as an outsider consuming a lot of American culture that I find strange is the hero worship that is bestowed on military service personnel. The mainstream 'trash' telly, like NCIS, Hawaii Five-0 etc paint those in uniform in almost god like terms. It's difficult to explain as a Brit, that I find it rather alarming.

 

I'm from a military family, I respect those guys and gals, sure. The level that it looks like though it's almost like a recruitment campaign. I look at the shows above and all I can think of is some poor kid in the Ozarks seeing that he'll get respect and love in a place and all he has to do is throw himself into the petro-chemical driven military meat grinder. And in reality, that just won't happen. He'll end up sitting in some hell hole surrounded by people who hate him, with no clear mission until he steps on a IED and is shipped back home and abandoned on disabilty to become one of the many vets wandering around downtown homeless with serious mental health issues.

 

 

 

 

The Atlantic is running a series called "The Tragedy of the American Military" which really touches on some of the real issues facing our Armed Forces. 

 

 

My own take on it is that soldiers deserve respect if only because at one point in time they've written a check payable to either "US Gov't" or "freedom and democracy" (depending on your level of cynicism) in the amount of "my ass" that can be cashed at any time. Beyond that, the specific of military service vary wildly - some grunt who's done 3 tours in Iraq has had a difference experience than a squid who's been cruising around on an aircraft carrier for 4 yrs, who has had a different experience than the guy who spent 4 yrs in the motor pool in the middle of Kentucky. 

 

(this is the first time I've tried to organize these thoughts, so I might ramble)

 

Another thing to remember is that for all the "THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL PATRIOTS" sometimes it's an only way out for young people with slim options....hence the disproportionate number of poor and/or minority soldiers. Plus if you talk to any halfway sensible vet, it's a pretty good fucking gig (once you get over the fact that "get killed when ordered" is in your job description) - free (or at least subsidized) housing, medical care for life, retirement w/pension after 20 yrs, promotions/pay raises regularly and on merit, free university schooling, job training, etc etc. I read a book by some liberal weenie* who had a son, and realized that he wasn't "manly" - i.e. he didn't shoot guns or fix cars or camp or do any stereotypically manly stuff, so he decided to go experience it; his chapter on going to hang with the army was interesting in many way, the most important of which here is that all the soldiers he spoke to talked more about what a cool job the Army was, as far as driving big trucks/tanks, blowing shit up, and shooting guns, and not so much about "duty" or "service." 

 

 

The problem really comes from the thought that our servicemen (and the armed services, in general) are EXCEPTIONAL and MAKE SACRIFICES so the rest of us can BE FREE to they are beyond reproach or criticism; remember the shitstorm when some other liberal weenie* DARED to suggest that maybe the lionization of soldiers makes it easier to send them into dangerous, shitty, no-win situations? "ZOMG WHAT IS HE SAYING ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS?!?! UNPATRIOTIC!" 

 

 

Even more troubling are the rumblings coming from people who apparently want a STARSHIP TROOPERS-type society - you aren't a "real" citizen unless you've served. And even with our military at ridiculous levels of bloat, there isn't room (or even need) for everyone to serve. 

 

 

 

Link to the article from the Atlantic (a very liberal-weenie* publication) - http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

 

 

* - I agree with them, but he are still a liberal weenies


Edited by Chavez - 3/22/15 at 7:20am
post #110 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
 

 

 

The Atlantic is running a series called "The Tragedy of the American Military" which really touches on some of the real issues facing our Armed Forces. 

 

 

My own take on it is that soldiers deserve respect if only because at one point in time they've written a check payable to either "US Gov't" or "freedom and democracy" (depending on your level of cynicism) in the amount of "my ass" that can be cashed at any time. Beyond that, the specific of military service vary wildly - some grunt who's done 3 tours in Iraq has had a difference experience than a squid who's been cruising around on an aircraft carrier for 4 yrs, who has had a different experience than the guy who spent 4 yrs in the motor pool in the middle of Kentucky. 

 

(this is the first time I've tried to organize these thoughts, so I might ramble)

 

Another thing to remember is that for all the "THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL PATRIOTS" sometimes it's an only way out for young people with slim options....hence the disproportionate number of poor and/or minority soldiers. Plus if you talk to any halfway sensible vet, it's a pretty good fucking gig (once you get over the fact that "get killed when ordered" is in your job description) - free (or at least subsidized) housing, medical care for life, retirement w/pension after 20 yrs, promotions/pay raises regularly and on merit, free university schooling, job training, etc etc. I read a book by some liberal weenie* who had a son, and realized that he wasn't "manly" - i.e. he didn't shoot guns or fix cars or camp or do any stereotypically manly stuff, so he decided to go experience it; his chapter on going to hang with the army was interesting in many way, the most important of which here is that all the soldiers he spoke to talked more about what a cool job the Army was, as far as driving big trucks/tanks, blowing shit up, and shooting guns, and not so much about "duty" or "service." 

 

 

The problem really comes from the thought that our servicemen (and the armed services, in general) are EXCEPTIONAL and MAKE SACRIFICES so the rest of us can BE FREE to they are beyond reproach or criticism; remember the shitstorm when some other liberal weenie* DARED to suggest that maybe the lionization of soldiers makes it easier to send them into dangerous, shitty, no-win situations? "ZOMG WHAT IS HE SAYING ABOUT OUR SOLDIERS?!?! UNPATRIOTIC!" 

 

 

Even more troubling are the rumblings coming from people who apparently want a STARSHIP TROOPERS-type society - you aren't a "real" citizen unless you've served. And even with our military at ridiculous levels of bloat, there isn't room (or even need) for everyone to serve. 

 

 

 

Link to the article from the Atlantic (a very liberal-weenie* publication) - http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

 

 

* - I agree with them, but he are still a liberal weenies


 I saw a documentary about Pat Tillman and a few of the guys in that who enlisted said they did not out of a sense of patriotism but because they wanted to blow shit up. That mentally may what lead to Tillman's death by friendly fire. The guys who shot him wanted to be in a fire fight so bad they started shooting at what they thought was the enemy but was a guide for the patrol Tillman was with.

post #111 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

It also depends entirely on how WW is drawn and that really can make the difference for WW (and other female charaters) appear strong or exploited.
Larsen agrees with this.


Some opinions from one of the "guilty parties" (aka comic artists)...

http://www.reaxxion.com/6512/erik-larsen-speaks-on-online-outrage-women-in-comics-and-sexist-costume-designs
post #112 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post


Larsen agrees with this.


Some opinions from one of the "guilty parties" (aka comic artists)...

http://www.reaxxion.com/6512/erik-larsen-speaks-on-online-outrage-women-in-comics-and-sexist-costume-designs

ooooh boy that comment section....

 

While I agree with him somewhat, he doesn't really make a good argument as to why one method of characteral portrayal is better than the other. I mean, how do the new costumes for female superheroes like Batgirl or Wonderwoman look any less "superheroic" than their classic costumes? 


Edited by Ska Oreo - 3/22/15 at 3:37pm
post #113 of 4805
I'd argue the new WW costume doesnt look as iconic as the original. It's color blocking is awkward design. I've see WW in a better looking "pants suit".
Edited by DARKMITE8 - 3/22/15 at 5:10pm
post #114 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post

I'd argue the new WW costume doesnt look as iconic as the original. It's color blocking is awkward design. I've see WW in a better looking "pants suit".

On the costume itself...yeah it's not great. But it's clear that Larsen isn't just talking about awkward designs.

post #115 of 4805
Thread Starter 
The comments are drivel, but Larsen lays out some good points. One thing I think he alluded to, but didn't quite say (unless I missed it), is that WW having a fuller costume won't increase sales. No one offended by the design alone is refusing to buy her books based on that, hell, they may have never bought an issue in their lives. WW doesn't sell because DC has repeatedly failed to stick the landing on the character. There's a great, simple idea there, and grafting on a garish redesign and changing up her origin hasn't helped them do it, it's really just a symptom of the problems they've had with her for decades now.

Also, all of the New 52 designs are shit. Superman in particular looks awful. Taking the underwear away is fine if you figure out a way to balance the design in their absence, and they didn't do that. The red belt and collar are compromises and "updates" that simply don't work.


Edit: Looked up the new Spider-Woman costume. He's right. It's ugly.
post #116 of 4805
Thread Starter 
Oh my God. I didn't realize they redesigned WW *again*. Wow. That. Looks. Awful. Seriously. What the fuck is that?
post #117 of 4805
I'll give you WW--it's atrocious no matter how you look at it. But I dig the new Spider-WoMan one.
post #118 of 4805

A wise woman said all this long before the age of social media and she was as right as Larsen is today.

 

 

Quote:
 

There’s a tendency to treat any feedback as though it represents a measurable portion of the audience. If a book gets one letter for every thousand readers, editorial sometimes assumes that each letter talks for the other 999 people, but that’s nonsense. If one guy says he’d totally buy a signed and numbered hardcover 3-D Man collection, it may very well be that just that one reader is interested in such a book. There’s no reason to think the other 999 unspoken readers would fall in line and purchase such an unlikely collection. It’s no way to run a company. That single voice really doesn’t speak for the others. That one reader speaks for that one reader. Others may agree. Others may not but they aren’t making their opinions known.

 

There’s also a tendency to bellyache. Readers don’t necessarily run out and sing the praises of anything: they’re more likely to bitch and moan

 

This guy gets it.  In school I was always taught that a satisfied patient will tell 1-2 people but a dissatisfied one will tell 10.

 

If I still collected comics I would go buy a bunch of his stuff to support him.


Edited by TzuDohNihm - 3/24/15 at 8:59am
post #119 of 4805

What's to get?

 

That's a blatantly natural human inclination: to bitch.  Unless something is exceptional enough to call out, most people will accept it as 'the way things should be.'  The moment it isn't, it's time to bitch because such INCONVENIENCE is unacceptable!  And it's also about as natural for the other side to get tunnel vision and only see the 1 negative out of 10 positives.  It's a feedback loop in that way.  It's always been there, it's just been heightened to ridiculous extremes due to social media. 

 

It's not just about readers.

post #120 of 4805

Meant to bold the first part of his statement as well.  Should have probably put two quote boxes in but the getting it part is that the internet has given the vocal minority a megaphone and made them appear much more cohesive than they are.

post #121 of 4805

NO!!!! (I represent your entire readership!  CODDLE MEEE!!!)

post #122 of 4805
Thread Starter 
I know this is coming off as dramatic and super fanboyish, but that WW costume is kind of devastating to me. It's not just that it's bad, it's that it is representative of a series of compounding errors DC has made with the character and to absolutely no good end.
post #123 of 4805

Can someone provide a link or post an image? To someone who knows jackshit about WW, finding the current costume isn't as easy as it should be. DC's official site doesn't even have it on the characters page, unless I'm looking at the wrong place.

post #124 of 4805

I'm not sure whether the "vocal minority" somehow discredits any point being made. That's where my mindset concerning this thread is. On the one hand, I do agree that bullying exists on both sides of the spectrum, I also think that this way of thinking is an easy, and lazy, way to dismiss any sort of criticism directed at the status-quo, hence some of my uneasiness with some of the posts here. And when some of those voices are within the industry itself, I don't think you can dismiss it so easily

 

As I said before, I agree with Larson's point to a degree, but a lot of it also feels like the drivel of an old man shouting at those dang kids and their hip-hop. Times are changing and to expect 40+ year-old characters to stay the same just because "that's the way it's always been." Doesn't really sit well with me.

 

But then again....

 

 

Some of those DC costumes are awful.

post #125 of 4805
Thread Starter 
post #126 of 4805
Wrist blades. It's like Liefeld is back.

Balls to that.

The rest of it is okay. Ish.
post #127 of 4805

 

Thanks.

 

Huh. Well, not being terrribly knowledgeable about the character, I'd call that "eh" rather than terrible. The wrist blades, even to me, seem like a huge mistake, but other than maybe removing the blue undershirt - maybe - the rest looks fine to me. If it was some kind of fine armor mesh, it'd make more sense, but whatever.

 

But I don't have a dog in this fight, and no true strong opinion about the character and her costume.

post #128 of 4805
Thread Starter 
Wonder Woman is a superhuman. It doesn't even make practical sense that she needs to be heavily armored. That's what I'm saying. On top of being just plain ugly and overly busy, the design which is supposedly "striving" for something more practical / tactical, doesn't even make sense when you give the slightest thought to the character who is wearing it.
post #129 of 4805
We should all fight nekkid, really...
post #130 of 4805

See, I don't even know what she is and isn't. When Miller had her flying in Dark Knight Strikes Back - I know, I know - it confused the hell out of me.

post #131 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

We should all fight nekkid, really...

tis the path of a true superhero.

post #132 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Wonder Woman is a superhuman. It doesn't even make practical sense that she needs to be heavily armored. That's what I'm saying. On top of being just plain ugly and overly busy, the design which is supposedly "striving" for something more practical / tactical, doesn't even make sense when you give the slightest thought to the character who is wearing it.

what if it was superpowered armor?

post #133 of 4805
Thread Starter 
Think of the Hulk driving a tank into a fight (yeah, okay, that's kind of a wonderful image...but I'm making a point). The WW design is the equivalent of that.
post #134 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Think of the Hulk driving a tank into a fight (yeah, okay, that's kind of a wonderful image...but I'm making a point). The WW design is the equivalent of that.

and my point still stands: WHAT IF IT WAS A HULK-POWERED TANK?!! 

 

(I'm joking. I do agree with you.)

post #135 of 4805
Well somebody's seen Terminator 2.
post #136 of 4805
In a context of Wonder \Woman costumes, doesn't "practical" simply mean she can throw a punch without her tits jumping out? How many of her costume designs have fit that simple criteria over the years?
post #137 of 4805
Thread Starter 
To Larsen's point, these aren't real people wearing these costumes. In real life, Batman couldn't fight in a huge, billowing cape, but the artist dictates the laws of physics in sequential art.
post #138 of 4805
How about some Eastern society and pop culture?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/03/24/392430233/koreans-have-an-insatiable-appetite-for-watching-strangers-binge-eat?

I put this here in discussion of the kinds of PHILOMENA (regardless of how niche or how 50 Shades) that I just can't understand but am fascinated to look into the circumstances that gives rise to them.

The NPR piece goes into that a bit.
post #139 of 4805
Thread Starter 
The future of the human race...



That is so incredibly bizarre, but seeing as how I recently became aware of the existence of amateur "matterphage" and YouTube "celebrity, shoenice, I shouldn't be surprised. The whole world is turning into a John Waters film, and we owe him royalties.
post #140 of 4805
What's interesting to me is less how it registers on the weird-shit-o-meter (I've seen weirder, though I frequently wish I hadn't) than the notion that it represents some kind of backlash against the modern culture of artificial perfection. Someone with more familiarity with Korean culture would know how much credence to give that idea, but it's interesting, after watching the faces on TV, magazine covers, movie screens, and an increasingly broad swath of upper-crust society become more and more plastic and homogenous every year for pretty much as long as I've been alive, to consider that there might come a point where the tide turns and people begin saying what I've felt all along: what is this shit, why am I supposed to find these mannequin-people attractive, do you have any actual flesh-and-blood human beings I could look at instead? As someone who's always been vaguely sorry to have missed the era of dirty hippies, I find the idea kind of pleasing, although I'd hope for it to take a less bizarre-and-mildly-disturbing form in my corner of the world.
post #141 of 4805
Despite being Korean, I can't speak too knowledgeably about the culture since I don't live there.

Still, in an already homogenous population, I do find it disturbing that the standard of beauty there seems even moreso. With plastic surgery being accepted as a norm and pop stars looking one way in a patriarchal culture that already has issues about achieving success... there can't not be some kind of weird post-modern blowback to it all.

The weirdness to me with this example is just how bland it is in its weirdness. It's just watching someone eat.
post #142 of 4805
Thread Starter 
It's the pornification of the mundane. I think I have seen more photos of Eddie Murphy going to Coffee Bean than I've seen Eddie Murphy movies. If there's not a connection between outrage culture, the obsession with celebrity minutiae, and the minutiae that now creates celebrities, then I'll make it up.
post #143 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post
....it's interesting, after watching the faces on TV, magazine covers, movie screens, and an increasingly broad swath of upper-crust society become more and more plastic and homogenous every year for pretty much as long as I've been alive, to consider that there might come a point where the tide turns and people begin saying what I've felt all along: what is this shit, why am I supposed to find these mannequin-people attractive, do you have any actual flesh-and-blood human beings I could look at instead? As someone who's always been vaguely sorry to have missed the era of dirty hippies, I find the idea kind of pleasing, although I'd hope for it to take a less bizarre-and-mildly-disturbing form in my corner of the world.

 

 

I dunno, there's plenty of "regular women" porn sites out there. 

 

 

 

....*ahem* at least, that's what I've heard. 

 

Anyway, I personally *do* like women (if we're discussing pure gender attractiveness, and not just a general sense) who are, for lack of a better word, "real." I've unfortunately met a few women who being despite being attractive 40-ish seem to think that they aren't that attractive due to having had 3 kids and an ass you can no longer bounce a quarter off of, etc....it's vaguely troubling that a perfectly attractive woman needs to be reassured that she's lovely. 

 

 

Sorry, been drinking, I hope my point comes across the way I'd like it....that being I don't quite TRUST someone who looks airbrushed perfect; the imperfections are oftentimes where the true beauty lies. 

post #144 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post

I dunno, there's plenty of "regular women" porn sites out there. 

....*ahem* at least, that's what I've heard.
Well, I was thinking more in public, mainstream popular culture - porn is still part of the "fringe" in that people don't generally talk about it or acknowledge it in front of others (though that's somewhat less true than it used to be.) But yeah, it's already started at the fringes of society...I just wonder when it will make its way into the mainstream, and what that will look like.
post #145 of 4805
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Well, I was thinking more in public, mainstream popular culture - porn is still part of the "fringe" in that people don't generally talk about it or acknowledge it in front of others (though that's somewhat less true than it used to be.) But yeah, it's already started at the fringes of society...I just wonder when it will make its way into the mainstream, and what that will look like.

 

 

Well, Jamie Lee Curtis for one has pushed back against the airbrushed/photoshopped magazine cover look. 

 

 

It probably doesn't hurt that un-retouched JLC still looks fucking gorgeous. Also women like Helen Mirren and Connie Britton are very much aging naturally in front of us. So I think that there is a much appreciated movement; whether it is just a moment in time or if it's gaining steam, I don't know. 

post #146 of 4805

Hope so.

 

Though I don't think airbrushing/photoshopping will ever lose steam.  The ease/convenience of it will generally win out.  I mean, consider all the digital nip/tucking going on in big movies that is kept hush-hush at the moment.

 

http://mashable.com/2014/12/01/hollywood-secret-beauty-procedure/

post #147 of 4805
Thread Starter 
I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that the A-list superhero actor was Robert Downey Jr. Also, this article couldn't be better timed with the release of the M:I-5 trailer. Cruise is fit for his age, but something has been going on for years.
post #148 of 4805

I would think Tom Cruise, who looked younger in OBLIVION than he did in GHOST PROTOCOL.

 

Though, I guess he's not playing an actual superhero...

post #149 of 4805
Thread Starter 
Edited for mention of Cruise. He's been seen shirtless in pap shots, but in films and official stills, there's digital tom-cruise-foolery afoot.
post #150 of 4805

Thing about those paparazzi shots from him shirtless on a ledge from Ghost Protocol... that's about the way he looked in the final film for the most part.  That's really the portion where I say he 'looks his age' when I compare it to his look in OBLIVION, which came out the year after (I think).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media