Company publicity - what can they improve? — Page 3

Well, I don't think the term "universally attractive," for all intents and purposes, is necessarily saying that 100% of all females and gay men in this world would find a particular man extremely sexy, but I don't think anyone would question the concept of certain men and women having a tendency to appear a lot more attractive than others to most people. And Emcee is right in that I'm not calling the guy ugly. I think some people really let their bias toward him factor into their objective evaluation of his looks.

I don't think Raul's attractiveness (or lack thereof, as your opinion may be) is even the point, though. You can't sell a show to discerning audiences just on how hot the leading man is. They're not going to pay $110 to see that.

I think a lot of the people in this thread aren't being logical in their suggestions. Buddy icons? A master's class at Juilliard? If they're going to spend money on marketing, they aren't going to waste it on targeting the teen-college students who will end up buying $36 rush tickets. Marketing should be targeted towards people that are going to be paying full price for their tickets, because that's how a show makes money.

---

Updated On: 4/3/07 at 01:17 AM

One problem with that would be that Doyle has removed all the "sex" or personal contact from the show.
So if people went expecting SEX IN THE CITY they would be highly disappointed and not create good word of mouth.

Despite its having been known for being candid about sex from a woman's perspective (and I loved it for that), Sex and the City was more reliably about relationships and finding a connection with someone and making it work. That's the thing that kept viewers watching, more than anything. Isherwood said it best in his out of town review that Bobby is a Mr. Big type -- the frustratingly enigmatic bachelor whom women are drawn to without really knowing why. It's not the attractiveness of the lead or the actual physical contact that needs to be at the forefront for that to translate, it's the idea of that character. As a friend of mine said, it's "This is the guy you've always wanted but can never pin down. Here's why." THAT, I think, they could've done a lot more with even without having a drop-dead gorgeous lead.

Updated On: 4/3/07 at 01:28 AM

or that he's gay?
or bi?
or whatever.

I always thought Bobby was straight
and once people started confusing the character with Sondheim they lost the point.
And Raul's messy Bi/Gay/married/has a closeted BF
just didn't help.

The audience Company is missing is an audience that doesn't know a damn about Raul's issues, CPD.

I don't want to insult the design team behind the show, because they did not do a terrible job. But a much sleeker, much more savvy job could have been done. More graphic and eye catching, less retro cutesy. More variation on the theme.

The cast (and Raul in particular) could have been photographed more attractively, too. It may not make or break, but it never hurts.

As a graphic designer it's kind of hard for me to be objective about it, because I'm just imagining how I would have personally done it.

Well, Tarzan went that direction, and it doesn't seem to be working out so well for them.

I think that the objective vs. subjective attractiveness discussion is a tangent that's sidetracking the thread, but I have to chime in and say that I definitely think that there is a degree of objective attractiveness. That's pretty much the way that TV advertising works, isn't it? They find people whom most people are going to think are attractive. The danger is in picking out a specific person and rating them according to that abstract idea -- that is, it's difficult to pick out a specific person and decide on their degree of "objective" attractiveness or unattractveness, since it's such a vague concept anyway.

I don't think Tarzan is really taking much advantage of their hot naked guy with their ads, sweetestsiren. Your statement is not entirely accurate. It is Disney after all. So far the publicity posters and such have been pretty tame compared to what they could be doing which is just plastering Josh in his loincloth all over town with the logo over his crotch area. The posters that I have seen that do feature Josh have him fully clothed.

Good point Cats. I think that at this point Rauls looks really shouldn't be the issue debated over here. Obviously judging from the percentages at this point, they'd need more than a clever advertising gimmick to pull this one up. I think that the show is just puttering out and it is really sad to see. I really want it to make Tony time.

---

I don't think I'm trying to prove anything anymore than you are, and I still personally think it's possible in most situations to distance oneself far enough away from a particular person to evaluate if he or she would probably have a widespread, strong appeal. I also don't think it's easier to find someone objectively unattractive, because there are quite a few unattractive people about whom a select few people would say, "I'm attracted to him" for whatever reason. I think it goes both ways; it's my opinion. Your earlier posts conveyed that you didn't feel any notion of objective beauty existed, which is why I went into the "extreme" examples and brought up the science behind it.

I also said that being a huge fan of Raul might influence how far back one is able to take that step away and evaluate how he would likely be perceived by most, not that he was the cause for you feeling a particular way about standards of beauty in general.

ETA: I'm late. Can we just agree to disagree? At least 75% of what we're discussing comes down strictly and purely to opinion, really. You're entitled to your beliefs; I wasn't trying to "prove" anything other than what truly does have scientific backing.

Updated On: 4/3/07 at 02:11 AM

Cats, of course no one can say that a certain physical characteristic is attractive all of the time and to all people. It still doesn't mean that physical attractiveness is therefore automatically 100% subjective, either. Most of what Emcee and I were discussing boils down to personal opinion, but I don't think anyone can argue that, for example, huge noses on a female are considered attractive more times than not. Are there going to be people who find huge noses very sexy? Of course, but one can still speak in generalities to some extent; I'm not sure how anyone would argue against that.

At any rate, I'm sorry for having even posted my initial comment since it managed to derail the thread this much (granted, totally with my help). Definitely not making any more posts on this thread. Can someone PLEASE put it back on track, because it's an interesting topic and I clearly don't know how to bring it back to where it should be?

I didn't mean that your examples were extreme. I meant that extremes exist, objectives, if you will. I do agree with some of the things you're saying. I just don't really see the point in making this into such a huge thing, when it's really not even the issue. And yes, it's a contention of opinion -- of course it is. I have less of a problem with what you're saying than with the way it reads, to be honest, which is this insistence that you know most people would think one way or the other.

And what can I say, other than that I like to think I can still maintain a little bit of objectivity I don't really think it makes any sense to say that being a fan of his somehow blocks my ability to recognize that he's not physically attractive to everybody or think about how non-fans see him. I certainly don't think that everyone will find him attractive just because I do. I have no investment in how attractive other people find him because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's not like I'm in denial that some people just don't see it. There's no reason to be. I don't really know why it had to become a personal thing and turn to the claim that because I'm a big fan, I'm just incapable of seeing certain things, 'cause frankly, it's kind of an unnecessary insult. But I guess I should learn to expect that from one person or another every time I type his name anymore. I'll wait for the peanut gallery to weigh in and tell me that I only think he's talented because I think he's attractive and we'll have all bases covered.

Whatever, I'm going to sleep, since my attempt to answer C and put us back on track failed.

---

Updated On: 4/3/07 at 02:38 AM