Posts: 2,541
Threads: 2,358
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
123
Sad...her and Reeve both gone.
R.I.P
I know it's cruel to say this when she just died, but...why don't they ever cast attractive women to play Lois Lane in movies? Kidder had a strange appearance and was a goofy actress. Now it's Amy Adams, a pretty good actress, but every time she's in a scene with Diane Lane, I think, "Superman's mother is hotter than Lois!!"
Quote: @Jor-El said:
I know it's cruel to say this when she just died, but...why don't they ever cast attractive women to play Lois Lane in movies? Kidder had a strange appearance and was a goofy actress. Now it's Amy Adams, a pretty good actress, but every time she's in a scene with Diane Lane, I think, "Superman's mother is hotter than Lois!!"
I think its part of the Superman image. He's above pettiness and see her for a strong intelligent person. I thought Margot was kinda cute. I've never been overly attracted to glamour though.
Yeah, I think it's easier to sell the "tough Metropolis reporter" angle with a woman that's a bit longer on personality and shorter on glitz.
I also think, in all fairness, that those of us that are old enough to remember Diane Lane's many roles kinda remember her as she was...though she's still got it.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ Jor-El said:
I know it's cruel to say this when she just died, but...why don't they ever cast attractive women to play Lois Lane in movies? Kidder had a strange appearance and was a goofy actress. Now it's Amy Adams, a pretty good actress, but every time she's in a scene with Diane Lane, I think, "Superman's mother is hotter than Lois!!"
I think its part of the Superman image. He's above pettiness and see her for a strong intelligent person. I thought Margot was kinda cute. I've never been overly attracted to glamour though.
I LOVE the way you put the best possible construction on Kidder being cast as Lois Lane. I didn't think she was horrible looking... but Amy Adams is world's better (imo, of course). So we may disagree on that... but I love the way you think! B)
Quote: @Zanary said:
Yeah, I think it's easier to sell the "tough Metropolis reporter" angle with a woman that's a bit longer on personality and shorter on glitz.
I also think, in all fairness, that those of us that are old enough to remember Diane Lane's many roles kinda remember her as she was...though she's still got it.
Yes, I probably give Diane Lane a lot of credit from memory...
And I understand they may be taking the "longer on personality and shorter on glitz" approach, but that's essentially "pretty girls can't be smart", and extremely sloppy filmmaking. There was no one like Jessica Chastain who could have portrayed smart+beautiful? It's an especially weak rationale for an industry that regularly tries to sell us highly unbelievable female casting like Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist...
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ Zanary said:
Yeah, I think it's easier to sell the "tough Metropolis reporter" angle with a woman that's a bit longer on personality and shorter on glitz.
I also think, in all fairness, that those of us that are old enough to remember Diane Lane's many roles kinda remember her as she was...though she's still got it.
Yes, I probably give Diane Lane a lot of credit from memory...
And I understand they may be taking the "longer on personality and shorter on glitz" approach, but that's essentially "pretty girls can't be smart", and extremely sloppy filmmaking. There was no one like Jessica Chastain who could have portrayed smart+beautiful? It's an especially weak rationale for an industry that regularly tries to sell us highly unbelievable female casting like Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist...
I actually think that your example explains their rationale, as well as the many complaints of over-sexualizing roles in Hollywood.
It's a catch-22: if you cast the very attractive actress, you did it for her sex appeal over all else; if you compromise somewhat, you're saying that beauty and brains are exclusive from one another.
|
