Yet another potentially interesting premise ruined by the casting of four fashion models. We're meant to think this lot are super scientists when basically they look like they belong standing around sipping champagne at New York Fashion Week. "Generic" just doesn't say it.
shareAnd so very diverse too!
sharehahah I kind of agree.. Obvious there are a few hot scientists but if you look at the average they tend to care less about their looks so they tend to be ruled as less hot. This movie tries to make people think super models are just as smart as scientists.. You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you concentrate to look like a *beep* super model you are not going to be able to read that good physics book.
shareAgree. and they're not "pretty" in an attractive or interesting kind of way. They're just generic fashion show model pretty, the types that I can barely tell apart from each other and are only meant to showcase a clothing line.
Get some actors with some personality in their faces, something that grabs my interesting and that I can read, rather than carbon copied blank slates.
^ A bunch of ugly people whining about pretty actors.
Nothing in this movie makes sense. said the narcoleptic.
^ A bunch of ugly people whining about pretty actors.
hahahah my exact thoughts. "for *beep*'s sake why can't they be more unattractive? we all know unattractive people are more scientific and more intelligent than attractive people. wah wah wah." lolll
shareI'm actually quite beautiful and I agree with OP :P
But seriously, actors with looks that exude personality and charm; That's what's missing here. Actors are by and large "pretty", but the best ones have other attractive traits that sets them apart and makes them interesting on the big screen.
Thank you for saying it. It's just wa wa wa wa wa I don't wanna see pretty people acting like scientists, because...
shareI am a 35 year old female neurosurgeon (MD) with two PhD's (Physiological Psychology and the second in Neurology with a specialty in speech development) and a Masters of Science Degree in Biological Anthropology (dealing with the evolution of the brain and how it has evolved in relation to speech, the prefrontal cortex, hand movements and bipedalism).
I have had to contend with professors who thought be caused I cared about my appearance, and took care to look good, that meant I wasn't going to be "up for the work-load in the class" and various other misconceptions about how attractive people are perceived compared to their minds. By the first exam and or papers, any thoughts they had were gone; they saw that I had beauty and brains. I have an IQ of 174 (The average is around 100 - give or take one standard deviation. Genius level begins at 135). At 15 years of age I was 1 of 13 people in a University program called the BA/MD program (I was but one of people applying from around the world). The program enabled those of us to get our baccalaureate degree and medical degree simultaneously. To become a Neurosurgeon, it took another 9 years of residency (it usually is 13 years of post graduate schooling to become a neurosurgeon)
I am tired of people thinking that physical looks have anything to do with mental capacity. The two are independent variables. Attractiveness is genetic, as is mental acuity, but they are not mutually exclusive. Thinking that intelligent people must be dowdy shows similar baser thinking as does thinking that a person's skin color and intelligence are connected.
exactly. personally, i find it absolutely hilarious that they're blaming the casting directors for their own silly preconceptions. it's a funny world in which we live.
shareexactly. personally, i find it absolutely hilarious that they're blaming the casting directors for their own silly preconceptions. it's a funny world in which we live.
not yet. however, that criticism is very different from 'they look like they should be sipping champagne at fashion week'. i am looking forward to streaming it, nonetheless.
sharethese actors couldn't act their way out of paper bag
That's irrelevant to the OP's point; equating looks with intelligence. There is no shortage of actors who would look convincing (under the OP's parameters) as scientists, but would be no more convincing in the role.
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!
I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously since you typed be caused instead of because. That's clearly a user error and not a typo or the-always-blamed-for-everything, autocorrect.
shareLOL! tbh i thought it was a typo at first since the sentence still makes sense without it, but after further consideration i think you're right. maybe english isn't her first language? 'be caused', what a funny use of the english language! :)
shareIt only makes sense if you think of it as because. Other than that I don't think it does
share1. No one likes a braggart
2. You sound hot. Pix??
No one said all, just most. Funny how you have to explain things to the over educated snobs.
share*beep*
Im an intern focusing in neurosurgery and i know few things about how long it takes for all the things you are saying.
Basic MD - 6 years
Internship - 1 or 2 years (if lucky)
Neurology(since most universities dont offer direct neurosurgery) - 4 years
Neurosurgery - around 5 more years if not split into general surgery for 1-2 years at the beginning.
PHD's - even if you manage to do PHD on the side while studying neurology or neurosurgery (which is EXTREMELY unlikely), you couldnt, for sure, do 2 of them at the same time. That adds 4 more years.
Plus the master - 2-3 years
and the sum is 23 years if you are excellent student and find a university right after the basic diploma.
That would mean 35-23=12. You started the university at age of 12. WOW.. Such a genius, such a beauty.
karserasl for someone who apparently thinks they know everything you seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. Or maybe you just didn't actually read all of the post you are trying to flame.
And you actually buying all the BS that this post trying to say?
I wrote whats needed to actually be a neurosurgeon with 2 PhDs and Masters and all the BS she(He?) is saying.
Things like this are extremely improbable.
But lets say shes real and everything is true. Shes a genius then that, for sure, published ALOT of citations and articles.
So please OP, if you are reading this, paste some of your work.
Then i'll say im wrong and sorry.
Well if she is dishonest as you assert, then she is extremely imaginative. I at a loss as to her motivation though.
Have you considered that some things you read on teh interwebs are actually true? She took time to essentially explain that she IS a genius. I don't see why she has to prove to you that her post is factual. Not even a little. For curiosity sake I read a few of her other posts and I believe what I read...and I'm extremely skeptical by nature.
You're a complete dumbass, common Internet troll just "interneting". Time to crawl back in your hole. Know when you're out of your league. Not to mention the POINT made by her comment is applicable regardless.
All we have here are average looking insecure people in a circle jerk, don't be mistaken.
Honestly, I'm skeptical too because by definition, the average IQ is 100, not 100 give or take any standard deviation (which...doesn't make sense because you don't give or take standard deviations, but OK). IQ average is ALWAYS 100, and it has a standard deviation of 15. This is done statistically. They gather all the data and standardize the scores around an average of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Also, it's really hard to get an IQ of 174. I give IQ tests, and people can do EXTREMELY well and still just get around 120 or 130. This makes me wonder if this person got a 174 on one of those fake internet IQ tests that just gives you puzzles and is completely unrelated to actual IQ. But in the end, there's a lot of debate about what IQ tests really tell you anyway, so who knows what information it even tells you. Again, it's very possible this person is telling the truth, but there's a lot to make me skeptical.
shareI am tired of people thinking that physical looks have anything to do with mental capacity.
I have an IQ of 175 and I look like a troll.
share[deleted]
well you made the smart side of the argument, but not the hot side. for that we'd need to see pics.
also, you honestly don't see many people as hot as fashion models in the high level sciences. that has nothing to do with genetics saying they're not that smart. it's likely more environmental in that most super hotties learn early that the world will give them a lot of what they need for much less effort than it takes to get a degree in neurosurgery.
i would argue that for someone extremely beautiful to become a neurosurgeon, takes a thousand times more discipline than someone plain or "ugly", because people who are stunning are genuinely bombarded with opportunities and distractions at every stage gate along the way. they would have to be incredibly focused, to not get derailed or distracted by easier, or more "fun" choices for what to do with their time, and i'm just starting at the little lower level things. if people ask you 100 times a week vs. 10 times a week to go grab a drink, or go to a party, or to come to their show, or play, or dungeons and dragons thing, even saying yes 2 or 3 times more often than the person with only 10 offers to "do" something would add up to maybe 4 to 6 hours less time per week that goes into study. let's say this starts already in middle school, where discipline isn't even all the way formed, and it's safe to say the beautiful people are likely "timed out" of the running for a high end medical speciality degree before they even finish high school. kids know that early whether they have the educational basis, or even the discipline to go all the way, and someone with that many options... much less likely they will opt for the most difficult route. not impossible. but much much much less likely.
Are you suggesting that I should relinquish my Phd due to my matinee idol looks and Adonis like physique?
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!
dunno what is all this fuzz about who is pretty and all, all actors looked average, that is if you live in europe, half of the actors looked like goddamn polish people, they are as rare as water in the ocean, acting was below average however, not bad but not good either
Seriously, the two guys looked very average. Actually, the protagonist looked just like a chemistry whiz that I used to work with on hobby electronics projects, so it doesn't seem as if they're "too pretty" for this type of work in my opinion.
Honestly, this seems like a very shallow thing to criticize a movie over in the first place. Is LOTR a bad franchise because Legolas and Aragorn are too beautiful to be convincing warriors? Is Se7en terrible because Brad Pitt is too dreamy to be a convincing police detective? Nearly every movie would be subject to dismissal if this arbitrary measurement were used to judge a films merits.
o boy, here we go with the europeans hatred of polish people.
must be awful for you europeans, if all the polish people look like this:
http://www.imagozone.com/var/albums/modele/Joanna%20Krupa/Joanna%20Krupa%20031.jpg?m=1293099677
http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/8775266/740full-monika-jagaciak.jpg
http://img001.lazygirls.info/people/magdalena_wrobel/magdalena_wrobel_magdalena122_Qp8hR6Z.sized.jpg
o boy, here we go with the europeans hatred of polish people.
must be awful for you europeans, if all the polish people look like this:
http://www.imagozone.com/var/albums/modele/Joanna%20Krupa/Joanna%20Krupa%20031.jpg?m=1293099677
http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/8775266/740full-monika-jagaciak.jpg
http://img001.lazygirls.info/people/magdalena_wrobel/magdalena_wrobel_magdalena122_Qp8hR6Z.sized.jpg
[deleted]