GG, the link doesn't work. I got "FORBIDDEN."

Wow. That's really...not the same. Huh. Gald they don't do that to HL ! (Or do they? *worried*) EDIT: Oops. Guess they do.

TV Guide does. The airbrush him until it looks like he's been embalmed.

TV Guide seems to do that to everyone. Crank the contrast way way up and airbrush any signs of life out of the picture.

TV Guide does. The airbrush him until it looks like he's been embalmed. Strangely, even though I know that many, many people are genuinely pissed off by the airbrushing in TVG, that's one that doesn't bother me at all. I think they've been very clever in their use of airbrushing because they've consistently gone for a particular look. They aren't trying to pretend that the person hasn't been touched up, they're actually using it for effect. It's going to wear out it's welcome very soon because they've been doing it for several months, but for the moment that's the one I don't mind. EW uses the same effect to a slightly lesser degree and that one has yet to bug either. In the case of EW, though, they tend to go for a more obvious comic book effect. TVG goes almost noir sometimes. Either way, I see it as being much different from the kind of thing that happened with Faith Hill. Or, really, most female celebrities and models. I'm offended when they feel they need to make these already perfectly thin women even thinner or these already flawless women pore-free. that's just ridiculous. I remember Jenny McCarthy going on Oprah years ago with a giant before and after picture of one of her photo shoots. She showed the "fixed" version next to the original version, broke out a big marker and circled all of her flaws that they'd felt the need to fix. None of that is to say that TVG or EW or any other magazine isn't guilty of the more offensive brand of airbrushing and "picture fixing" (the recent cover of Patrick Dempsey was too clean, but the inside picture was similar to Hugh's and looked pretty good, imo), but as far as the kind of thing they've done with Hugh and Billy Petersen and...others I forget right now, I'm not bothered. Aw, amysusanne, a girl can dream, can't she?...... I know, I'm sorry. I'm a compulsive crusher of all hope and optimism. The photoshop/airbrush thing - seems like everyone is going over board with using this nowadays, & its a shame, you loose so much character from the actors faces, but that said, I'll live with it if it gives me ads like that. Whatever the execution, its a great sneaky concept. Oh, my issue with that isn't airbrushing or even that it was photoshopped in the first place, it's that it was so obviously and sloppily photoshopped. That irritates me. Badly. Surely there were existing pictures of Hugh and RSL or House and Wilson that they could have edited a couple of tshirts on and put in that ad. I know that they aren't expecting that people will know old promo pics on site, but it just seems amateur. If a fan did it as a manip it would be amusing, that it was sent to a magazine as an ad just doesn't work for me.

GG, thanks for the comparison. It is obscene to think that someone thinks that Faith Hill is not pretty enough as a real person. Some years ago, some casting director told Sela Ward (yes, the same SW) to her face that they were looking for a younger version of her. :shock: So she did a documentary about the pressure of looking younger in film and magazines. One of the most eye-opening segments was of a fashion editor at Vogue or Elle (or some similar publication) looking through headshots of models, throwing out photos of 17 year old models as being too old, then selecting a 14 year old. But, even she was not perfect enough so they airbrushed every freckle, every aspect of her that made her an real individual until she became the Stepford girl...It was a quite well-done piece of work. :curse: We have been conditioned to accept a certain look as beautiful in women. Look at any Top 10 list of Sexiest Women and, while there are some minor differences, they all look very similar. But, look at a list of of Sexiest Men, it might contain Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Hugh Laurie, :w00t: but it could also include Woody Allen, John Goodman, Marlon Brando in his later years, and on and on.... I forget, what was the question? :tumbleweed: I know, I'm sorry. I'm a compulsive crusher of all hope and optimism. You and Jay Leno.... :lol:

Moving this here Hugh Laurie on Leno, Part I This is in three parts. Be sure to watch all of them. :) Enjoy! ENB

That should say TWO parts. Mea culpa.

On topic -- John Cleese (who has worked with Hugh) did a documentary about beauty a few years ago. There is some sort of constant ratio between the size of the head and the spacing of the eyes and nose which has endured throughout the ages as an ideal of human beauty. It's in the Greek and Roman statues and the fashion magazines of today. So that seems to be hard-wired into us. But within that framework there is room for a lot of variations. I remember reading something that. I suppose my question/comment is that women appear to have a much broader perspective of what is beautiful. For men, being visual beings, a more standarized look is sought. Women, seeking at a genetic level, a good provider go beyond appearances alone (which is not to say we don't appreciate attractiveness, but somehow we are able to include other qualities that make us believe that the one we love is beautiful.)

Without trying to sound pretentious, here, but also not wanting to take credit for someone else's idea while also giving credit to said person -- oh, hell, it's just gonna sound pretentious no matter what I do, so here goes... I was having a conversation with the artist Olafur Eliasson a couple of weeks ago, and he remarked that the notion of beauty has always had a political aspect, i.e. that there's a political notion to the idea that one set of features is more attractive than another, one nose more beautiful, et al, and that our notion of what beauty is always needed to be considered in light of what might underlie it in that respect. Well, I thought that was a pretty interesting thing to consider, not just with respect to how we perceive the human form but also how we perceive works of art as being beautiful or not (which is how the conversation started, and yes, we were both/all a little drunk by then, as this was the after party point of the evening). In any estimation, however, I think Hugh looked VERY beautiful on Leno the other night, and also seemed very at ease. I think it was his best US interview ever, as stated above. I think we got a little bit of the unguarded Hugh there, at least for a moment or so.

We all love an unguarded Hugh. :) Love when asked about his sons asking for his advice: "I ask THEM for advice!". So cute. He seems like the perfect Dad.

HL on Leno was awesome. Here I was thinking that it wasn't possible to love the man any more... Also, his accent really has softened. It's subtle, but it's definitely got an American tint to it. I'm not surprised in the slightest - he spends his days on set using the American accent all the time and then goes back to his place to stare at the wall (which luckily has a TV attatched to it, sic). Not to mention the fact that he spends most of his time around American accents. His accent is actually most notable on the interviews about S4 that were release on YT last week.