Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Masta_Don]

[Smee]

[kermo]

[karma police]

Norma Jean



totally turned on...

[JongnoGuru]

Yeah, there's Marilyn. But once we've enter the 2nd half of the 20th century, the age of colour photography, pin-up calendars and Playboy centrefolds, we're no longer comparing apples to oranges (as we're supposed to on this thread) but comparing apples to apples. We're here to compare Paris Hilton to Mae West or Clara Bow, not Paris Hilton or Britney Spears to Marilyn Monroe.

[Tony_Balony]

[peppermint]

I like old movies, but I can't really see the appeal of either Lillian Gish or Mary Pickford in those pictures. They just look so devoid of personality. Lillian does look more personable, if not downright come-hitherish in this one




I think particularly when you're going that far back, movies would be better than mere pictures. A good movie will draw you into their world, whereas with a picture, it's very easy to let all the years that have passed since the photo was taken distance yourself from it

[andrew]

.....

[just4u]

I'm not trying to insult any woman in the old photographs so pls nobody jump on that bandwagon in reply to this post. But in a photograph, it's not just the physical beauty that comes thru, it's who u are...at least that's my opinion. Who u are and your life experiences can show in a photo like they would not in real life.
I don't know how to say this, but this is just my two cents. Women back then were expected to marry for child rearing purposes only, and many marriages were arranged. They weren't expected to let loose or like sex. Sex was a duty. It's hard to "look sexy" in a photo if u don't enjoy sex or just thinking about sex if you haven't had sex yet. I think the women are beautiful, but not sexy, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I think a quality photo shows what u think about (if that makes any sense.) The women before 1950 aren't thinking about sex. They are thinking about farming and their children. I don't mean it as an insult. They look very "respectable" just not "sexy."
Ms. Monroe and her contemporaries were the first crop of women to change that. It shows in their photos and in who they were.
Just my two cents and pls no one take it as an insult.

[kermo]

[JustJohn]

I think in the really old ones it's the makeup that makes them look ugly. Notice that the couple pictures where they have less severe makeup the women are still attractive.

Anyway, my vote goes to Audrey Hepburn. QUITE the looker when she was young.

[shifty]

It could have been the technology available that favored certain looks.

For example, in the days of black and white, male actors with brown eyes
were favored above say blue. Simply b/c blue looks wishy washy in black and white.

[bassexpander]

Here's one you can see posted-up in Korean coffee shops today. Audrey Hepburn:







It's who they all wanna be.... kind of a "dream face" for Korean women.

[Rteacher]

Jean Harlow was considered very hot in her day, but they would have to upgrade the facial make-up work quite a bit for her to compete with stars of today. Then again, without artificial breast augmentation, many of todays stars would have trouble competing with her body...

[Alyallen]

Call me crazy but wasn't Elizabeth Taylor an "It" girl back in the day?



I'm no guy, but is she not sultry, sexy and va va voom?



Sophia Loren wasn't a bad looking woman either...