The 'Beautiful People' in media, Why does Hollywood/Media still sexualise nearly EVERYTHING.

[Parasondox]

Good evening to you all and I hope those in London are handling the strike well and I really hope everyone outside of London around the UK are doing okay and getting the best help you can cause the weather is a *****.

Long Intro. So the beautiful people in hollywood. I think many of you know what I am going to say. Why? Why does Hollywood still sexualise everything cause I find it insulting. Yes I did say insulting because I feel that when anything is sexualised or 'made beautiful', that Hollywood things and assumes we want this. Thinking the notion of 'sex sells' work today. Yes I know it been happening for decades and centuries but that's my point. Don't they think we have moved on from that or do they still assume we want everything 'sexy'.

Where am I getting at with this? Let's start with Agents of Shield pilot. So here is a hacker that has apparently been living in her van for years but for some reason looks like a model every time on screen. Really Joss Whedon? The latest 'I, Frankenstein' movie and well... isn't Frankenstein's monster mean't to be made up of several body parts? Not just a guy with a few scars and abs. Latest 'RoboCop', so in the trailer he was almost killed but luckily survived after an explosion, his body suffered some horrendous injuries but hold on a minute, his face is all perfectly fine and as handsome as ever.

Listen (or in this case read, haha did you get it, read? because you are actually reading this instead of... okay never mind lets move on), I get that in some certain movies, TV the 'sexualised beauty' does play to the script and plot but does it have to go to so many other things. Going back to why I think it's an insult, it's cause I feel they (Hollywood) assume we as movie goers only go to watch a movie because of this pretty person and a boob flash just to keep people happy? What people? DO we need a boob flash or award sex scene in anything we watch? I mentioned Strike Back a few months ago saying I love the show but hated the fact that there is a sex scene in every damn episode. It's a military action drama for crying out loud. Also I am not knocking sex and natural beauty here. Sex is a part of human nature that I support and everyone in the world is beautiful in their own way, inside and out. Even in books they wanted to 'sex things up' because a certain 50 Shades of Gray was a top seller. They wanted to rewrite and 'sex up' Jane Austen's books. SERIOUSLY?!?! Do companies really assume, and I am being serious here, that sex sells really works? We get it, Kate Upton is attractive but do you really need her to eat that burger to make us want to buy it?

So do you think this overly sexualisation of beauty and sex itself is getting too much in movies and TV and other forms of media today where it becomes an insult from Hollywood? Has there been a situation in movie or television where you see this happen and you feel it's annoying and pointless? Please share your thoughts, any thoughts below.

The Sun or Daily Star editor: "Hey look, let's put a big breast women on the cover of this, so guys will buy it."
Me: "Don't FUCKING insult me. I still wouldn't buy your crap."

Fox News: "okay ladies, wear skirts and dresses to show off those legs so the audience will continue watching."
Me: "Wow, what a way to treat your female employees Fox. You get zero respect from me and everyone else."

Imagine a few years ago I wouldn't even think twice about this topic, I'm all grown up now with big boy pants

CAPTCHA: "outlook good" - I don't know, I use Gmail... okay okay okay and outlook at time but only for business.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...is it an insult if it's true?

There is a big industry about the Beautiful People. Every time an actress eats something, or does not, there is an outcry. Any time her weight goes up or down, it Serious Business. If she doesn't lose her baby weight within a week or two, the entire internet will die in fire and water.

Now, yes, plastering beautiful people on TV all the time might be a cause of that, but it's also a reflection.

 

[Tom_green_day]

To put it simply- if I could look at a good looking person, or an ugly person... Well, as Kevin Bacon loves to say 'it's a no brainer'

isn't Frankenstein's monster mean't to be made up of several body parts?

Just wanted to correct you on this, however. I read the book recently and I'm pretty sure the monster isn't made from other body parts, that's only what films have projected to emphasise the horror element which wasn't really there in the book apart from the premise.

 

[Parasondox]

Well...is it an insult if it's true?

There is a big industry about the Beautiful People. Every time an actress eats something, or does not, there is an outcry. Any time her weight goes up or down, it Serious Business. If she doesn't lose her baby weight within a week or two, the entire internet will die in fire and water.

Now, yes, plastering beautiful people on TV all the time might be a cause of that, but it's also a reflection.

That's the thing though. Why does it become a 'serious business'? Who cares, and I mean deep down, who actually cares if a certain model or actress can or can not lose all that baby weight in a few weeks and don't say corporations and companies. Who, within everyday society is actually demanding to know all of this? Why is there a 'Daily Mail' way of thinking that people actually want to know what they eat, how they look in a bikini and what she wears.

It's like what Charlie Brooker pointed out on Screen Wipe a few weeks ago. Did the french media and people care about their Presidents alleged affair and mystery romance with another women? Heck no. But did the UK media get obsessed about it and had it on every newspaper and channel? YES. Did we Brits actually give a damn. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. So who exactly thinks we need all this nonsense when we don't?

 

[Parasondox]

To put it simply- if I could look at a good looking person, or an ugly person... Well, as Kevin Bacon loves to say 'it's a no brainer'

isn't Frankenstein's monster mean't to be made up of several body parts?

Just wanted to correct you on this, however. I read the book recently and I'm pretty sure the monster isn't made from other body parts, that's only what films have projected to emphasise the horror element which wasn't really there in the book apart from the premise.

Isn't beauty more than just about if someone is 'hot or not', 'good looking person and ugly person'? I'm thinking, doesn't hollywood and most of media have the idea of what true beauty is, instead of, "Well she's sexy, let's just put her/him on the cover".

Thank you for the correction on Frankenstein's monster. The many movies of him do say he was made up of several parts but the book has no mention of that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's the thing though. Why does it become a 'serious business'? Who cares, and I mean deep down, who actually cares if a certain model or actress can or can not lose all that baby weight in a few weeks and don't say corporations and companies.

Depends what you mean by "deep down cares". Caring enough to read a rubbish article about it is enough to make it worthwhile writing that article. There are plenty of magazines devoted exclusively to that sort of rubbish...and presumably they sell enough copies to make printing them worthwhile.

 

[Ratty]

Original question - Sex Sells. Sad but true. Sex is along with the desire for food and shelter one of the primary motivators in the lives of humans and most other complex animals. Using sex to sell products is just exploiting this.

And using the power of the media to define an attractive body image as something that is unattainable to the majority of the population lets you sell more products that promise to bring people closer to that unattainable image.

Just wanted to correct you on this, however. I read the book recently and I'm pretty sure the monster isn't made from other body parts, that's only what films have projected to emphasise the horror element which wasn't really there in the book apart from the premise.

Well at the time that the iconic first Frankenstein film with Boris Karloff was made (1931) the big moral "Has science gone too far?" panic was over... the possibility of organ transplants. [footnote]Yeah those life-saving procedures we do all the time today. Dr. Frankenstein's work along these lines was shown to be explicitly sacrilegious. One line of dialog that was censored from the film for decades was, right after declaring that the monster was alive Dr. Frankenstein proclaims
"In the name of God, now I know what it feels like to BE God!"[/footnote] So it's not surprising that they incorporated that into the character.

Colin Clive, who played Dr. Frankenstein in Frankenstein 1931 and Bride of Frankenstein, was actually in another movie which tapped into the same moral panic. "Mad Love" wherein he played a concert pianist who had to have a hand transplant with a murderer who killed with throwing knives, which somehow made him good at knife throwing. Yeah, then as now there's a lot of misinformation about science floating around in the media. Though "Mad Love" was more about saying "Oh man those Doctors are creepy and crazy." by having the brilliant surgeon who does the transplant be a deranged stalker.

 

[Parasondox]

That's the thing though. Why does it become a 'serious business'? Who cares, and I mean deep down, who actually cares if a certain model or actress can or can not lose all that baby weight in a few weeks and don't say corporations and companies.

Depends what you mean by "deep down cares". Caring enough to read a rubbish article about it is enough to make it worthwhile writing that article. There are plenty of magazines devoted exclusively to that sort of rubbish...and presumably they sell enough copies to make printing them worthwhile.

I could question that further but can't. You are right there will still be one or two people still buying and reading those articles which in itself, will get popular and more in demand for that said content. It's still a wonder though and maybe something I won't fully understand yet.

 

[Flutterguy]

Really makes works that don't involve a cast 10/10 people stand out to me in a good way. Actually I have a great comparison.
Notice the characters are actually believable in their role? Like actually pimple ridden non bulimic teens. Then the idea got bought for a TV show... so naturally the main character is swapped out for a muscular and attractive lead and the 'ugly chick' is only ugly because she wears 1980's glasses. Yes it has that one overweight supporting male actor, but even that is a trope.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I could question that further but can't. You are right there will still be one or two people still buying and reading those articles which in itself, will get popular and more in demand for that said content. It's still a wonder though and maybe something I won't fully understand yet.

Well, it's been suggested that there is a human need to put others on a pedestal. In days gone by we had the aristocracy for that, later we'd get cults of personality based around people like Hitler, nowdays we've got people who were on reality TV.

Really makes works that don't involve a cast 10/10 people stand out to me in a good way.

Yeah...which is one (of many) reason why US remakes of UK shows always tend to be crap. Police shows should be about a grizzle old bloke that needs a shave and drinks too much and his long suffering DS. Not about a lot of shiny faced 12 year old showing cleavage.

 

[FalloutJack]

Holloywood will stop selling sec when sex is no longer a lucrative, money-making product. In short: Never. You may as well give up the fight, because sex is linked with the continuation of the species and that is on alot of people's minds at some point. Ergo, anything that gets people's libido up is a money-maker. (If someone has an exception to the rule, that's fine, but the point is still true.)

 

[Someone Depressing]

Sex sells.

That's why Hugh Jackson or whatever his sexyness is is almost always shirtless in that one Wolverine movie that will only be remembered because he was shirtless in most of it.

And Hollywood movies.. kind of suck balls.

 

[stroopwafel]

Hollywood needs to market a product with mass-appeal so naturally they will go with what they find aesthetically pleasing. Now ofcourse we're talking Hollywood here where every movie looks like a slick commercial. Usually with a piss poor script so you need to compensate with something. Then there is celebrity worship and the whole aggregate industry of TV shows and trash newspapers/magazines. It's really a well of creativity and interesting thought.

I think one of the reasons a TV show like Breaking Bad was so popular is that for once a show had a great story and great acting and didn't need to compensate for anything. If anything I think the excessive focus on superficial stuff just shows the creative bankruptcy of most Hollywood productions in general.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I, for one, enjoy seeing all the sexualisation and "beautiful people" in media. It's all very pleasant to look at. Sexuality is a brilliantly joyful topic for many people, including myself. Is it really so surprising that it's popular and marketers use it to full advantage?

 

[TheIceQueen]

Probably because sex sells. If it didn't sell then Hollywood would have moved onto something else that actually does sell, wouldn't it?

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Yeah, I can?t believe that something like ?Page 3? still exists in this day and age. I might be a man who likes sexy women, but I still don?t need some half-naked, Z-list celebrity on the front cover of my newspaper to entertain me in the morning. I have the actual news for that. And indeed, I was pissed off by the same thing you were in Agents of Shield, which was part of the reason I turned off by about the third episode.

However, wasn?t Frankenstein?s monster designed as the physically perfect being, whatever he was made up of?

And yeah, as others said: sex sells, and a lot of people are stupid.

 

[Parasondox]

Yeah, I can?t believe that something like ?Page 3? still exists in this day and age. I might be a man who likes sexy women, but I still don?t need some half-naked, Z-list celebrity on the front cover of my newspaper to entertain me in the morning. I have the actual news for that.

Wait, they still have Page 3 Girls? I thought they were getting rid of that like 2 years ago? It's outdated, pointless and pretty stupid and offensive. Or was that the Daily Sport they stopped which is basically softcore porn in newspaper form and a few pages of actual sport.

 

[JoJo]

However, wasn't Frankenstein?s monster designed as the physically perfect being, whatever he was made up of?

No, at-least not in the original novel. A major plot point was that the monster, while being physically strong and actually quite intelligent, looked absolutely hideous and because of this was rejected by every human he met, including his own creator. To go from that to good-looking by human standards in the film in quite a leap, to say the least.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Yeah, I can?t believe that something like ?Page 3? still exists in this day and age. I might be a man who likes sexy women, but I still don?t need some half-naked, Z-list celebrity on the front cover of my newspaper to entertain me in the morning. I have the actual news for that.

Wait, they still have Page 3 Girls? I thought they were getting rid of that like 2 years ago? It's outdated, pointless and pretty stupid and offensive. Or was that the Daily Sport they stopped which is basically softcore porn in newspaper form and a few pages of actual sport.

Yes, indeed they do. Feminists and the like have been campaigning to get rid of it, but The Sun were like "lolno" and continued with it. Don't see why; most of these 'Page 3' girls can just migrate to Nuts or Zoo or FHM or Loaded where - and no, this isn't sexist - they belong. If I want to fap material, I'll read those magazines or search for it on the internet, not while I'm trying to catch up on current affairs on the bus.

 

[Parasondox]

Yeah, I can?t believe that something like ?Page 3? still exists in this day and age. I might be a man who likes sexy women, but I still don?t need some half-naked, Z-list celebrity on the front cover of my newspaper to entertain me in the morning. I have the actual news for that.

Wait, they still have Page 3 Girls? I thought they were getting rid of that like 2 years ago? It's outdated, pointless and pretty stupid and offensive. Or was that the Daily Sport they stopped which is basically softcore porn in newspaper form and a few pages of actual sport.

Yes, indeed they do. Feminists and the like have been campaigning to get rid of it, but The Sun were like "lolno" and continued with it. Don't see why; most of these 'Page 3' girls can just migrate to Nuts or Zoo or FHM or Loaded where - and no, this isn't sexist - they belong. If I want to fap material, I'll read those magazines or search for it on the internet, not while I'm trying to catch up on current affairs on the bus.

While, Jenna, 23 from Lincolnshire, expresses her views on the miserable weather we have while her boobs are out and talks about how the economy is looking better than last year. That doesn't sound right.