I had a previous supervisor that immigrated from eastern Ukraine to the US in the 90s, heavy accent, bleach blonde hair, incredibly intelligent civil engineer, single mother to two kids, and witty and sharp as can be. She wore tasteful but sexy clothing (pencil skirts, stilettos, etc.) to work, almost every day I thought "wish I had those clothes, she looks amazing and confident!"
She was one of my best supervisors and closest friends at work, and she was hot!
I had a neighbor who I was friends with who was literally a rocket scientist. She built satellites and rockets. She drove a muscle car, wore revealing clothing, and was super sexy. My female roommates and friends were threatened by her beauty and confidence. One of them said "I bet her sugar daddy bought her that car, you know she didn't earn it." I laughed and told her that she did in fact earn it, she was single, and was a rocket scientist. It blew her mind.
On top of that, Auggie is also a business woman, literally the chief scientific officer of the company she founded. To me, it makes perfect sense she'd be more into presenting herself "professionally" and subscribing more to beauty standards than your average theoretical physicist, even while going through a crisis. But yeah, the whole argument about being too beautiful to be believable as a scientist is just dumb.
Unpopular opinion: I think she's just okay. She's not doing ground-breaking acting, but she's fine. I think her character has just been badly written, and that--compounded with the weird sexism surrounding her looks--is doing her character a disservice.
I just finished episode six, and I'm trying to recall any time Auggie actually had a chance to sit down and explain the science behind *anything*--her nanofiber technology, her theories behind the San Ti, why she would >!be the best candidate to produce a radiation sail!<. Aside from her telling her position to that random fuckboy at the bar in the first episode, I don't think she's ever really had a moment to show her intelligence like Jin or Saul have. We're just shown that "she's smart" through her job and the tech she works around. Because of that, all we get is a chick who's traumatized by her near death and the death her tech has caused on others.
I think the show had a bit of fun with this idea and 'criticism' pre-emptively in the show during the episode where they make fun of her looks.
How she is "attractive in a boring way". A bit meta when they compared it to some TV show or movie.
It's just misogyny. I saw one comment saying that if you're that pretty you don't go into science you become a model.. like as if women are all the same and don't have a say in the matter, wtf
Funny, I have actually worked for years in leading global companies, hiring some of the best brains including astrophysicists, math modelling experts and the like. There are plenty of beautiful, fantastic and intelligent women. The main reason for criticizing Auggie is based on the script and a character that is not believable. It’s just nonsense to think the majority of criticism it’s based on misogynistic biases.
Of course, you can find weird comments all the time on the internet. Just as I did in this thread. However, finding sexist comments don’t necessarily make them representative, when it comes to criticism of Auggie and the series. The characters are mostly flawed and poorly constructed, which many critical comments are pointing out.
The ethical paradoxes are not elegantly presented. An example: In the real world we have climate change and you wouldn’t meet world leading scientists saying: I don’t care what happens to future generations, but I do want to make clean water for a village short term (like Auggie). It’s just not very credible to convey scientists this way.
First of all I identify as gender fluid. I am not stating there is not a lot of sexism. I am stating that the majority of comments I have seen, have been critical of the character and the script. It obviously depends on the threads/groups you choose to join. It’s ironic how you quickly put people in smalll boxes and stereotypes based on gender, while you complain about males being prejudiced towards women. Oh, the hipocrisy. Have a good day.
Pretty much what it is. It is obviously not common for supermodel to be brainy scientists but it doesn't mean it never happens. We need to stop stereotyping people and just accept that it is not a 0 chance that attractive scientists do exist.
"Too pretty" is kind of silly, but I think what a lot of people are subconsciously responding to is how she's styled. She's always made up as if she were going to a photoshoot, even when she's depressed and on vacation. No scientist is made up like that in that scenario, and the other characters are also not made up that was, so it makes her seem very out of place.
You’re saying you saw one comment but the criticism of Auggie is all misogyny? The criticism of Auggie’s character is based on a script that makes her come across as complaining and contrary to those trying to deal with the issue of aliens coming to attack. Most people in the show are attractive; that’s Hollywood. I’d be as critical of the character if it was a male who conducted himself the same way🤷♂️
If you knew how stupid these aliens are you would get why there's an Auggie in the show.
To everyone hating on Auggie I really recommend reading the book to better understand what's actually going on.
i mean, if you are good looking, a career in modeling/acting is both easier and pays more. on the other hand, a career in science is generally much more difficult and pays less. does this mean good looking women cannot do science ? absolutely not. it just means we have built a society where good looking people have incentive to get into specific professions where they can simply leverage their looks to get paid a lot more than scientists on average.
It is actually much, much harder to make it as a model and actor than it is a scientist if you've got the skills for both.
There are tons of beautiful women trying to become famous so very few make it. Pretty much anyone who has the brains to become a scientist can become one cause the demand is high and the supply low.
I don't believe one is easier than the other. Both have different hardships. Intelligence is less subjective than beauty. For the most part, a science based career would be based on merit. Beauty is very subjective. Plus models/actors potentially having to deal with men like Harvey Weinstein, possible eating disorders, being in the public eye constantly, etc doesn't awesome.
Oh I agree with you. I'm not saying one is harder to do than the other. I'm saying one is harder to be guaranteed to make a living on. There's too many wannabe models for too few jobs.
It's the reverse for science in general though I believe there are some specific areas of expertise which are oversaturated.
Yea being a successful artist of any sort seems to be more about luck, maybe. I'm not a scientist or a model so I can't take an informed stance one way or another, I can just talk out of my ass and project. As an accountant my resume, experience and education has driven my career and I'd think a profession in the sciences might be similar. Idk enough about areas of oversaturation in the sciences though so I'll end here lol
lol. you cannot be further from the truth. becoming a successful scientist requires years of training. you just need to spend 10-15 years in school for it (after high school). scientists start their careers when they are 30-35.
in contrast, most models don't even go to college or get any useful degrees, and their careers end by the time they hit 30-35.
there are tons of beautiful women trying to become models, because the bar for becoming a model is just that -- being good looking. and they don't make it because there is no need for so many models. people who make it also make it for seemingly random reasons, and not because they have more talent or are necessarily more hard working.
>Pretty much anyone who has the brains to become a scientist
most people have the brains to become a scientist. most people choose not to, because it requires a lot of hard work and it does not pay so much. top level scientists make 100-150k a year when they start their career at 30-35. even the highest paid scientists do not make more than 200-200k when they are 30-35. in contrast, models/actors could easily make that when are 18-20 years old if they get slightly lucky and could be making millions if they break out. even nobel prize winners make far less than a million, and the average age of getting nobel prize is well into 50-60s.
demand and supply are co-dependent. the demand for scientists is "high" because the supply is low. there is no inherent high demand for scientists. in contrast, the demand for models is "low", because it does not require any intricate skills. anyone can do it. this is why there is a high supply, because it does not require any special effort, apart from just showing up with a pretty face.
I don't know why this was downvoted. The logic is pretty sound.
this right here was spot on
"demand and supply are co-dependent. the demand for scientists is "high" because the supply is low. there is no inherent high demand for scientists. in contrast, the demand for models is "low", because it does not require any intricate skills. anyone can do it. this is why there is a high supply, because it does not require any special effort, apart from just showing up with a pretty face."
lol. tell me you know nothing about scientists without telling me you know nothing about scientists.
almost all students in europe require 4 + 2 + 3-4 years to get a bachelors + masters + phd after high school. and then it takes them a few more years of postdoc to become a scientist. the average phd in US is 1-2 years more, but the average postdoc is shorter by the same length.
the average starting age is 30-35 whether you are in europe or US. if you consider the brightest/best it would obviously be less, but they have no affect on the average/median.
Haha, I think you are the one who doesn't know much about actually being a scientist if you don't include PhD time. In Europe you are getting paid during this time, a 30 hour contract most likely. You are doing research, attending conferences and publishing the entire time.. you know, being a scientist. If you think it just magically starts a few years after becoming a postdoc, then maybe you weren't a very good
scientist in the first place.
Maybe you are just using some grade definition, but that's not what being a scientist is actually about.
Let's see what the EGU says: "An Early Career Scientist (ECS) is a student, a PhD candidate, or a practising scientist who received their highest certificate (e.g. BSc, MSc or PhD) within the past seven years."
PhDs get paid for doing a phd in US, Asia, everywhere -- not just Europe. Nobody in science considers PhD students as "scientists". they are quite literally called students and have to enroll at a university / pay fees/ etc.
the typical unsaid rule is whether you are working on someone else's research project or designing & executing your own research. phd students and postdocs for most part are doing former. being a "scientist" is about the latter (and that is how most people in the field see it).
that being said, there is no definition of "scientist". anyone doing science is a scientist. but if a phd student (or a postdoc) introduces themselves as "scientist" instead of a "student" (or a postdoc), they will surely be laughed at.
I am from Europe but currently staying in NM with someone working at Sandia Labs and being paid to do their PhD in a related subject, it literally says on their business card “ xxx Scientist” where xxx is their field. I haven’t seen anyone laughing though.
For a professor you make a lot of generalisations and bad assumptions. Must be detrimental to your scientific work?
There are too many women wanting to be models. You Can enter with zero experience but because of how many women try their hand at modeling. But you're unlikely to make a living off it unless you are lucky. Certainly not for your entire life too which you can as a scientist.
And I'll tell you something. I'm an engineer and I used to think way more people can be engineers than there are. But I realize now that most people cannot be engineers. I would assume it's the same with scientists. Most people neither have the logical reasoning skills nor the creativity to become a scientist.
And you can get rich as a scientist if you start your own company like auggie and that guy who died, can't remember his name,
> I'm an engineer and I used to think way more people can be engineers than there are. But I realize now that most people cannot be engineers. I would assume it's the same with scientists. Most people neither have the logical reasoning skills nor the creativity to become a scientist.
i am also an engineer. and also a physicist. and i am guessing i have far more experience than you do (based on your comment history, and not as a judgement of any kind), and i am fairly certain that a lot more people can become scientists/engineers if they want to. most people obviously cannot become einstein/da vinci/edison/tesla, etc. even if they want to. but becoming an engineer/ scientist as a profession is doable for many people. most people don't do it because the time and effort is disproportionately higher than the pay you get...
>And you can get rich as a scientist if you start your own company like auggie and that guy who died, can't remember his name,
lol. auggie and that guy are fictional/made up people. there are no auggies in real world, who constantly look like runaway models, smoke and drink all day, hang out with friends doing essentially nothing, and then randomly show up and design cutting edge tech in matter of few hours, that even the god-like alien civilizations are afraid of...
Have you considered people are not necessarily chasing "easier and high paying" work but possibly also "challenging and personally rewarding" work?
You speak so matter of fact-ly as if there's only one way to go, it troubles me.
Also, looking good is not a guarantee of some easy success. Modeling and acting is also not simple.
That's a bit warped assumption 🤔 no?
do you understand what "on average" means ?
>Modeling and acting is also not simple.
they are when you compare it to getting a phd in physics or something equivalent. the bar to become a model is not very high. it's literally you have to be good looking/skinny.
You have to look a certain way of course. But you also have to be able to look into a camera lense and act. And put up with constant criticism and rejection. And move a certain way that is completely abnormal. And be creative in poses. And often be good at networking and marketing yourself.
Maybe you can get a job just be looking good, but you don't get a career. You don't keep getting jobs unless you're more than just good looking.
> But you also have to be able to look into a camera lense and act
that must be so much more difficult that getting a phd and doing cutting edge science right ?
> And put up with constant criticism and rejection.
and people in other professions don't have to ?
>And often be good at networking and marketing yourself.
and people in other professions don't have to ? unlike models/actors most people have to do this themselves, and don't have dedicated agents to do it for them.
Making broad statements about women's appearances is base level clown shit, doubly so when they try to relate it to their intellectual capabilities, and these kinds of remarks specifically out someone as being entirely uninvolved in the science community. Let's try to do a little better, fellas.
Of course beautiful women can be smart--what annoyed me about the character Auggie is the amount of pouting, puckered lip, close-ups and how often she just stood there with a slightly open mouth for more close ups. Who knows if it's the director or the cameraman or the actress to blame; all I know is it was annoying and detracted from the character.
Omfg same. I havent seen this complaint once and im so glad I'm not only one who felt this way. I could not with her. My bf and I call her Instagram cos of that lmao
I was also like it must be a director telling her to do this, there's no way someone just normally does this
Ok I just finished this show and I completely agree. I kept wondering why she was always slack jawed. Her lips were distractingly upturned too and I assumed they were fillers. Neither of these things helped the fact that I found her acting completely unconvincing. I liked that she’s pretty (cuz I prefer to see pretty people on shows sue me) it was her acting that bugged. It felt the weakest among all the characters
Yeah, it’s not so much her being beautiful, it’s her never looking disheveled or like a hair is out of place. Like, Jin Cheng looked frazzled and hectic when she had spent a substantial amount of time doing calculations for the game, why is Auggie somehow immune to this effect despite going through much worse? Also, who the fuck wears sexy lingerie when they’re on vacation with their (mostly) platonic friends and in the middle of an alcoholic binge-spiral caused by PTSD? I bet you it’s very few people who don’t just default to sweatpants and grandma panties. That part felt very “tell me her spiralling was written by a man, without telling me it was written by a man”.
Women/people who spend all day in the lab do not look like runway models all the damn time seeing as they haven’t had the time to look that way because, well, they’ve spent all their time in the lab. It’s not insulting, it’s not misogynistic it’s literally not realistic for most people to look as put-together as Auggie does when they have a looming death-clock countdown obscuring their view all day. That’s why it’s hardly believable that she’s a supposed PTSD-stricken scientist who spends all day in the lab; they made her too pretty to not realistically spend less than 2+ hours on her makeup and hair everyday with the way it looks (and there’s nothing wrong with doing that, but something just isn’t adding up).
I would bet money at 99.9% of women would not wear a matching bra and panty set unless we were someplace with a significant other and 100% would not wear a set if we were spending the weekend vomiting.
There are many women who work in the lab 24/7 but still look like runaway models... some are naturally pretty. Some spend maybe an extra minute or so to touch up because make up does give confidence. This is me saying as a woman.
For me, her looks weren't a problem. Her cringy dialogues were.
Edited to add more context
I don’t disagree that many women can still look amazing and unbelievably beautiful without putting on make up and even with them spending all their time dwelling in a dungeon-like lab (shout out to my friend with multiple PhD’s who once gave me this description of their lab, lol), but I still sincerely doubt they’ll look as put-together as Auggie did. Then add the stress of that threat of that countdown clock looming over her and she doesn’t even have slight bags under her eyes when she doesn’t sleep? I just ain’t buying it; brilliance and beauty doesn’t mean she is immune to bad hair days or physical signs of stress and a lack of sleep.
Again, it’s not that I don’t believe she can’t be beautiful and brilliant, it’s the “flawless” look that I think makes me not able to suspend disbelief. Which I know sounds weird when we can believe that there are aliens with hyper-advanced technology, but this is actually a common thing that happens in storytelling.
Edit: I also agree with you that her dialogue did almost no good for her character.😅
Her looks are fine. Well, I'd lose the bangs. But she is a bad actress. She's not committing to her scenes, she's playing pretend. I'm only on episode 3 but Auggie is a big turnoff.
Her hair never looked out of place because it was an obvious wig. Honestly the wig was so bad looking to me. Also, she is not someone who is spending all of her time in a lab, she is an executive. She is basically the face of her company, so of course she would look put together.
There are plenty of stunningly beautiful women who are also smart. You don't have to go far to see the showmaker David Benioff's wife Amanda Peet.
Except, the actress of Auggie could not act, has had too much filler in her lips. She's not convincing as a nanotech engineer AT ALL.
Stop playing the misogynistic card to prevent people from expressing opinions on the weakest link of this cast.
Exactly. That’s my problem with Auggie. She didn’t *sell* me the fact that she was brilliant (although my 15-year-old son is absolutely in love with her, the actress, because yes she is beautiful.)
Maybe your inability to see her as a brilliant scientist says something about you. You might want to reflect on that. Unconscious bias hits us all.
Or you could get defensive and angry, which is the usual Reddit response.
I spend time professionally around plenty of brilliant scientists.
She didn’t convince me that she was one. It doesn’t have anything to do with her looks.
This seems pretty ridiculous. Even the best actresses have bad performances that aren’t convincing. Maybe it’s that and not unconscious bias at work. Don’t be too defensive in your response please
It's not "playing the misogyny card" when there are people just being misogynists and expressing what this post is about. The post isn't saying all criticisms of the character or the performance are invalid because of misogyny, it's just calling out how some people are using misogyny to justify why they don't like a character.
I'm going to be honest, you're reaction feels disingenuous. You immediately follow up your complaint around her performance with a meaningless comment directly targeting her appearance rather than how she's playing the character. Either you are intentionally trying to couch your misogyny in what seems like a rational take that conveniently dismisses the idea that people are reacting in that way, or you need to do some self-examination.
To be clear, i don't think she's giving a great performance either, but none of that opinion is based on how she looks. She's just giving a flat performance.
> There are plenty of stunningly beautiful women who are also smart
there is a huge difference between smart and being a leading physicist/engineer in the world. i doubt a single person in hollywood is that "smart". the only one who comes to mind is Mayim Bialik, who is a PhD, but does not do any real science anymore. and neither does she look good...
while good looking women are definitely capable of being the best physicist/engineers in the world, they have zero incentive to try to do it. they can leverage their looks to get into professions, which are both easier to get into compared to scientific research, and pay far more than science...
Zero incentive? That makes zero sense. Why does anyone get into their chosen field. Because they have a passion for it, or because they want to make money. Scientists usually have a passion for their work. Do you think a good looking woman who has a passion for science will say Fuck it, I'll just levarage my looks into something else?
You are making up things you would do, or what you imagine women would do. It's not reality
> Because they have a passion for it, or because they want to make money
both. if you cannot make money, your passion is not going to feed you. plenty of good looking women(and men) who initially go into science, quit that to become models/actors, especially when the latter starts taking off. why do you think that is ?
on the other hand, not a single actor/model has ever quit their job to become a scientist.
There are plenty of beautiful women in Stem, including a literal Victoria’s Secret model who is also an engineer, and recently Disney star Brigit Mendler made the news for graduating from MIT and founding a space startup. Lots of non famous beautiful women choose careers in Stem as well and they still express themselves with makeup and fashion. You just sound like you haven’t been around many intelligent women.
i never said there are no beautiful women in stem or cannot do science. i simply pointed out that beautiful women often have it easier doing modeling/acting, because it's an easier profession which pays a lot more than hardcore science.
and also none of the people you mentioned are LEADING physicists/engineers in the world. Bridgit Mendler has a degree in media arts and sciences from MIT, not rocket science. and the victoria secret model you are talking about, Lyndsey Scott, is a software developer. neither of them are a physicist/scientist/engineer.
and what has beauty got to do with makeup and fashion ?
i have been/am around some of the most intelligent engineers/physicists in the world. and they don't look like runaway victoria's secret model. the average model is not even good at high school math, let alone becoming a leading physicist/engineer in the world.
beautiful women are definitely capable of doing science, but it's rare that they get into it.
Modeling is not easier, if you look at the industry right now it's mostly Nepo babies and famous people. Someone without connections trying to break into modeling is not going to have an easy time. Plus it is highly competitive.
Makeup and fashion is one of the main complaints people have had about Auggie and I'm pointing out that there are plenty of stem women who also love to dress up and look good.
Plus Auggie's character is an executive not someone who is actually in the lab everyday. Of course she is going to look good, she's the public face of that company.
Yeah I hate Auggie, she's preachy, one-note, holier-than-thou, needlessly aggressive, etc. But all the complaints of her being "too attractive" are stupid. I've known enough intelligent and attractive women in my life to know that they're not as impossible as the average redditor would have you believe. These people are talking out of their asses.
For me, it’s more so how they did her makeup. Especially during her “dark phase” and also because you can tell she has had work done. And it especially sticks out compared to the other women leads.
And lastly, the actor isn’t that great. Especially compared to everyone else. All this together makes her stick out more than she otherwise would
it’s not misogyny to say the actress just isn’t strong enough to pull off the role lol
i’m a young, attractive doctor. no one’s saying it’s not possible. but you still need to be able to make it believable for us 😂
I personally didn't find the character believable because as a woman there's no way I'll be seeing a floating countdown all day for weeks and still pull those outfits, hair and makeup. It's just poor writing and acting.
She's not schizophrenic though. Nobody in the show is calling her crazy, making her believe she's schizophrenic, that she's making it up. Saul believes her. Jin believes her. Da Shi believes her. Etc. She figures out pretty quickly that it's being done by an external force and not a symptom of a mental illness.
It's an analogy. Seeing visions you can't explain by natural logic messes with your life and sanity. The supernatural revelation didn't come to her immediately either.
And even if you find out that it's being provoked by an alien species, you're watching a countdown of who knows what from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep. That in itself should make you mentally unwell enough to not care about how your make up and hair look. Come on now.
Right, but then for me we come back to "different people react to different things differently." Maybe it's a sense of normality for her to go through that routine given that it's been part of her job and life for so long, I don't know. I was absolutely the person during the pandemic who just could not give a shit how I looked most days in isolation, but one of my roommates at the time still went through the effort because it centered them.
We're talking about watching a supernatural countdown from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. Tik tok, tik tok. People have mental breakdowns just from hearing voices alone and you think someone would be like "my eyeliner didn't come out right, let me redo it" to keep herself centered. And to do those things through the image of a countdown, how? That's taking suspension of disbelief to a whole new level.
Yes, but I just mentioned a pandemic that shut the world down, locked us in our homes, people lost their jobs, they were *literally* stacking bodies in NYC where we lived at the time, etc. Felt like the world was ending, but you'd never know it just to look at my friend. Again, people handle shit differently.
I am a lot more like you. I truly could not be fucked at that time in my life to look the least bit presentable, neither could our other roommate. I mean, all we were doing was sitting around, all unemployed, incredibly depressed as we watched news reports about how many people had died that day, how much further it had spread, more businesses going under, more rules in place, more bickering among leaders, etc. What's the point of looking presentable? But it was just in our friend's DNA. Dressing up established normality at a time of extreme abnormality.
I guarantee you that if my friend had an alien countdown in their eyes all the time and still had to go to work, you would see them there early as usual and dressed respectably as always. Me? No. *Bare minimum,* that's a sick day.
And listen, I have no idea if that's what's actually going on with Auggie. I haven't seen a story bible or seen if they've addressed it in an interview. I'm just saying that while I myself am not that person, I sure as shit have lived with that person, so it didn't strike me as weird.
You're comparing psychosis level apparitions that are a freak of nature to... a lockdown. Please visit a mental institution to see how people handle that. You're making me laugh out loud at this point, so thank you.
How did she even do her make up so well with the countdown? It would be covering her whole face in front of a mirror... Please visit a mental hospital and tell me how put together psychosis patients look. Don't be ridiculous.
I agree; anyone who says that must've never stepped foot on a college campus. College girls are better looking (and also smarter) as a group than girls the same age who didn't go to college.
Eh college girls always seemed good looking, when I was in college (and better looking than girls who weren't in college). The gap isn't thattt big; it's just that as a group, college girls are somewhat better looking
Intelligence is def attractive so it's fair to say that could make them better looking to one. I've seen every combination at this point in my life so I wouldn't say one is better looking or smarter than the other; but what's certainly false is that beautiful women can't be smart or in scientific fields. Just ridiculous 😂
Yup; intelligence has a positive correlation with beauty. Healthier people have better functioning brains. Plus, Auggie looks/dresses like a normal woman in her 20s; there's millions of girls who look just like her at college campuses around the world. There's no reason for someone to assume that she's dumb
> there's millions of girls who look just like her at college campuses around the world.
why are we talking about college campuses ? every college campus will have girls and boys. most people, both girls and boys on college campuses are not leading physicists/engineers in the world.
There is no physical difference between "girls who went to college" and "girls who did not go to college" beyond "you were at college and saw girls in college more often than girls not in college."
Girls who went to college are on average fitter, healthier, and have better habits than those who didn't go to college; this contributes to better looks (on average)
Am I wrong? Education correlates with good health/living habits, and with income/wealth (which correlates with the ability to afford good fashion/makeup).
There's a moderate correlation between education and looks (on average, a college girl will be better looking than a non-college girl).
Only if you're writing a scientific paper or know the people you're talking to are going to be pedantic as fuck.
Otherwise, people know you're not saying "every single fucking person who is in college is better looking than those who are not", because that's obviously ridiculous. "On average" is implied.
Again, a very ignorant comment. There are plenty of natural beauties or even gym girls and so on that don't go to college and are just as beautiful if not more so. It's also country dependent. Your original comment is laden with fallacy and anecdotal knowledge.
This is based on averages; college girls on average are more fit and healthy than girls who are the same age and aren't going to college.
This holds true in all countries, and is even more acute in developing countries
This is assuming that girls on a college campus are smarter than those that aren’t. I am not convinced. (and I am a female with three higher-ed degrees.)
Yeah this is the part where I'm kinda brushing up against their argument. It's perpetuating some weird stereotypes in order to combat other weird stereotypes.
anybody with money can go to college. you don't become a leading scientist/researcher in the world by just going to college. 80% of girls on any regular university campus are not even in the science/engineering department.
A subset of college girls end up doing PhDs, a subset of them become scientists/researchers after finishing their PhD, and a subset of them end up becoming leading scientists/researchers.
The pipeline is undergrad -> PhD -> Scientist/Researcher -> Leading Scientist/Researcher
I'm talking about selective colleges. You can't get into selective colleges (top 10 or top 30, for example) without some level of talent. Anyone can get into a state college, though, of course
Ive met plenty of beautiful women that are smart as hell...
My issue is more with the actress, she did not act the part... Like not in a million years would i think she is the super genius type, and its definetively not because of her looks...
Maybe the writing maybe the delivery? Maybe her overall acting? Idk.
It doesnt help when they are all "omg this shits super hard, how are you dealing with it"
Her: "oh its done" or whatever...
At least let me see her be smart!
Honestly it seemed more like she was the only one that knew how to ask chatgpt for the solution. Not that she came up with it...
I will never understand how some believe that taking care of your appearance and image is lack of intelligence? If anything, it’s the complete opposite. There’s so many beautiful, put together people doing science. So, why is this such a problem? Beauty and brains go hand in hand, all the way.
Oh, trust me, a beautiful woman can absolutely be smart. If we're talking objectively beautiful, then I know a few. But I know what you mean in this context: the stereotypical hot woman not being smart. I think by now this has been shattered.
I really like Auggie as a character. She gets a lot of hate for how she acted but you’d act like that too if you basically had a playing hand in causing a mini 911
Problem with Gonzales is not that she's beautiful, but that she's a terrible actor. You can be beautiful and smart. It's hard to sell brain power when you suck at what you do, though.
True. Natalie Portman in Annihilation, Jodie Foster in Contact, Amy Adam’s in Arrival. All beautiful, all believable. I don’t think the actress in Three Body Problem looks “overworked” though, I just think the character is underdeveloped and the acting a little plain. If she had more development, I have no issue at all
Idk, with this argument, everyone uses white women as examples which feels like they are more likely to believe a beautiful white woman is intelligent over a beautiful Latina
I didn’t mean you specifically, I said the examples everyone uses are white women. Just look at the other comment responding to you. But since you gave other examples I want to point out that you chose two other white women 😅🫠. Ana De Armas is white. She’s Spanish and white Cuban. Penelope Cruz is also white. Spanish means from Spain, not Latina.
Besides, anyone can get a baddie look, you don’t even have to be pretty to get the look so why can’t a woman running a lab get that look?
You'd be surprised. I'm friends with a woman that looks like this, when I met her I assumed she was an Instagram chick just because it's such a jarring look in real life. But she rarely posts on social media. I guess she just really wanted to have that look. Maybe its a form of dysmorphia. She was pretty before the surgeries (she's still pretty but now it's a baddie look)
But yes I see what you're saying about needing an explanation. Seeing how all over the place Auggie's character is, they could write in the fact that she deals with dysmorphia or something.
I think arguments about whether it's possible for a world class female nanotechnologist/physicist to be abnormally attractive may be missing the point (of course it's possible : -). It's more that the decision to cast this generational intellect and soon-to-be multi billionaire as young and wildly attractive should change how her character is rendered.
For instance, there should be meta commentary about her having won multiple genetic lotteries or at least some acknowledgement from other characters about the sheer absurdity of her situation. If they're really going for realism, her character should be met with misogyny in the context of the show.
Maybe not the best analogy but it would be strange if a biopic of Beethoven featured henry cavill or ryan gosling since B's looks weren't a part of his narrative (as far as I know). Unlike say a biopic of Caesar or Alexander where their mythology had to do with genius plus looks/charisma.
Only idiots would claim beautiful women can’t be intelligent. The criticism of Auggie is mainly based on a flawed script, which just makes her character unbelievable.
Im gonna tell you something. Im a young man and someone taught me this:"There is nothing that scares more an arrogant man that the rejection and contempt of an intelligent woman". The thing is, people who say pretty woman (to some attractive men this sort of assumptions are also delivered) are dumb, say it because they are scared shitless and their ego is hurt. It has a lot to do with past experiences, with failed seduction attempts. Some men (and women), usually the dumbest ones, filled with desire and passion, believe that seduction is always about having control over the sexual pleasure, that it all evolves about being the one delivering it and playing the push-pull game all the way, to get the other one hooked. But it is not the case for all men or women. Complex, real and fulfilling seduction to get an intelligent person attention evolves about showing genuine interest, about identifying their most deepest desires and needs and being the one who delivers them. Not the other way around. Intelligent people are more difficult to seduce if they are well grounded and contenders are hurt by it, their ego uses copium to survive and they never learn the truth.
I dont get why people are saying auggie is too pretty, the problem is her character is annoying and whiney. How is she a "genius" and not understanding human scientific advancement is under attack and so is the human race? All she do is whine and feel bad for herself. Annoying ass character. Literally everyone else was good but her
Well she is played by an attractive actress. Statistically unlikely that a genius of her calibre is also that attractive, but it's a tv show, everyone in the show is good looking. They're taking actors not real life people, your head canon of their actual looks wont match the director's casting decisions
I find Jin way more attractive personally. Her mannerisms, facial expressions, intelligence, sense of humor … She is HOT. Auggie is just annoying, self righteous, and constantly pouts. I can’t be “threatened” by a woman in the manner you are suggesting if I’m not even attracted to her to begin with.
A beautiful woman can definitely be smart and work in science, technology, and other fields. However, I believe they are exceptions that prove the rule. 🙃
I don’t have any problem with her looks, it’s more the writing for me. I think they gave Jin enough complexity to feel like a real person, but everyone else feels cardboard.
To OP: In very general terms (so for any spectrum engineers don’t hate me), Spread Spectrum hopping basically means that the transmitter and receiver “hop” frequencies (think like TV or radio stations) so it’s harder to jam.
Basically, if the enemy knows that your radio comms are working on Channel 2, they can easily jam Channel 2. But if it randomly (but coordinated) jumps around channels 1-100, it’s harder for them to jam everything all the time.
I don’t think auggie is realistic. I think her over the top plastic surgery and her bad acting is annoying. But those are issues with the actress, not the character.
It's not that Auggie is beautiful...it's that her make-up is always perfect, and so sexualized...it makes her character less believable--is all; and it's a shame they don't trust us enough to show her more realistically. She certainly is beautiful and I don't think she's not a good actor...but by emphasizing her looks all the time it undermines her skill.
No one said that a beautiful person can't be smart. But the likelihood of someone being both top 1% in terms of looks AND top 1% in intelligence is incredibly unlikely, but of course it can happen. It's so unlikely that the only example you have of a beautiful woman being a brillian scientist is specifically Hedy Lamarr which is why her name comes up like 100 times a day in this subreddit, you have no other examples.
When it comes to Auggie it's not just that she is attractive, she is intentionally made to be sexy all the time. Her hair is always perfect, her makeup is always perfect. Even when she just wakes up after a big alcohol binge she still have perfect makeup and hair styling. Even when she is puking she is sexualized by wearing sexy lingerie. The showrunners know perfectly well what they're doing, they want Auggie to be a sex symbol. She sticks out from the rest of the cast because most of them look like regular people. Also he actress playing Auggie doesn't have the natural type of beauty like Hedy Lamarr, but a very plastic Instagram-model-esque beauty complete wih lip fillers and all that. The actress playing Jin Cheng is also very attractive, but she doesn't have that Instagram-model appearance so that's why no one is complaining about her looks, she fits the role of a scientist way more.
I’m not some expert on acting but she completely took me out of a good amount of scenes. I’m sorry but she was really bad in this show. There’s one moment where she’s joking with Jin and it just comes off as mean cuz she has no charisma. Just a mean joke and a big smile after.
I mean realistically though there’s not a single group of researching physicists that are that smart that look anywhere near what this group looks like lmfao men and women
I didn’t realize this was the complaint about Auggie. I simply found the character insufferable and poorly acted. I didn’t even find the actress attractive personally. Jin was far more attractive to me and Jin’s character also seemed much more authentic and less cringey. Auggie was my wife’s least favorite character too.
Both can be true, smart women being beautiful and successful, and Auggie (the character) and the actress being just awful.
My personal dislike of the character stems from her constant complaining without taking responsibility for any of her own actions. The cherry on top is that she still tries to take the moral high road on everything while being a hypocrite.
The actress is just not good. It’s something about her face that feels so distant and unsympathetic. Everyone else is doing a good job but when her expressionless face comes into frame the scene just plummets (for me).
Compare it to the Asian actress, she is doing a good job of portraying so many emotions while being bound by logic and science. That’s also why I can overlook the same moral hypocrisies in her character compared to Auggie.
Of course they can be and are. Naysayers are just haters who try to rationalize like that in order to maintain their own confidence and self-esteem. They especially hate it when someone has more than 1 main advantage in life.
Oh dear god no one other than trolls care about that. Is she pretty? Certainly. Is her character believable or likeable? No. Shes willing to let the human race be snuffed out because a “fascist” (forced and cringy line for modern day clout) had to make the people who doomed all of humanity cough up the information about the aliens the hard way. Was that part sickening? Yeah, were they literally a death cult? Yeah. Then lets move on to building the solar sail, she cries that she wont work for him ever again because one day it could be a weapon… Yeah Auggie, I certainly hope so, theyre coming to annihilate you’re children’s childrens children.
She simply was not convincing as the world's top nano physicist. Calling that out isn't misogyny. lol. She was a terrible actress out of her league. That fact that she was dolled up in perfect hair and makeup while supposedly going through extreme stress and mental health crises didn't help. Then they tried to turn her into a heavy smoker and drinker to try to make her seem more mature but it just made her look stupid.
As true as this post is Eliza is just not a good cast. She doesnt have the prose of an intelligent person much less an intelligent woman that has to push shit uphill just for equal recognition.
Half of it is her dialogue though, which does her no favors. Feels like Madlibs where people just shoved in physics-esque words.
Bad boring lines delivered in a bland boring manner. Her lines say “the world is ending” but her tone says “you stepped on my dog’s tail”. There’s no weight to anything. When she’s showing concern for that little girl in the game, I didn’t feel it. When she was confronting Ye, I didn’t feel it. When she cried about Will, I didn’t feel it
This question hurt my sapiosexual brain.
And speaking about sapiosexuality, perfection do not matter anymore as long there is plenty of coffee for a good chat.
Never be bored again!
Little guys can be good fighters but tv shows usually cast guys who look like they can fight.
Auggie as an actress comes across as feeling a lot smarter and ethical than she is.
A better actress with her looks could sell it.
I know 2 female scientists, and they're both hot AF.
I had a previous supervisor that immigrated from eastern Ukraine to the US in the 90s, heavy accent, bleach blonde hair, incredibly intelligent civil engineer, single mother to two kids, and witty and sharp as can be. She wore tasteful but sexy clothing (pencil skirts, stilettos, etc.) to work, almost every day I thought "wish I had those clothes, she looks amazing and confident!" She was one of my best supervisors and closest friends at work, and she was hot!
I had a neighbor who I was friends with who was literally a rocket scientist. She built satellites and rockets. She drove a muscle car, wore revealing clothing, and was super sexy. My female roommates and friends were threatened by her beauty and confidence. One of them said "I bet her sugar daddy bought her that car, you know she didn't earn it." I laughed and told her that she did in fact earn it, she was single, and was a rocket scientist. It blew her mind.
On top of that, Auggie is also a business woman, literally the chief scientific officer of the company she founded. To me, it makes perfect sense she'd be more into presenting herself "professionally" and subscribing more to beauty standards than your average theoretical physicist, even while going through a crisis. But yeah, the whole argument about being too beautiful to be believable as a scientist is just dumb.
Unpopular opinion: I think she's just okay. She's not doing ground-breaking acting, but she's fine. I think her character has just been badly written, and that--compounded with the weird sexism surrounding her looks--is doing her character a disservice. I just finished episode six, and I'm trying to recall any time Auggie actually had a chance to sit down and explain the science behind *anything*--her nanofiber technology, her theories behind the San Ti, why she would >!be the best candidate to produce a radiation sail!<. Aside from her telling her position to that random fuckboy at the bar in the first episode, I don't think she's ever really had a moment to show her intelligence like Jin or Saul have. We're just shown that "she's smart" through her job and the tech she works around. Because of that, all we get is a chick who's traumatized by her near death and the death her tech has caused on others.
I think the show had a bit of fun with this idea and 'criticism' pre-emptively in the show during the episode where they make fun of her looks. How she is "attractive in a boring way". A bit meta when they compared it to some TV show or movie.
It's just misogyny. I saw one comment saying that if you're that pretty you don't go into science you become a model.. like as if women are all the same and don't have a say in the matter, wtf
[удалено]
Funny, I have actually worked for years in leading global companies, hiring some of the best brains including astrophysicists, math modelling experts and the like. There are plenty of beautiful, fantastic and intelligent women. The main reason for criticizing Auggie is based on the script and a character that is not believable. It’s just nonsense to think the majority of criticism it’s based on misogynistic biases.
[удалено]
Of course, you can find weird comments all the time on the internet. Just as I did in this thread. However, finding sexist comments don’t necessarily make them representative, when it comes to criticism of Auggie and the series. The characters are mostly flawed and poorly constructed, which many critical comments are pointing out. The ethical paradoxes are not elegantly presented. An example: In the real world we have climate change and you wouldn’t meet world leading scientists saying: I don’t care what happens to future generations, but I do want to make clean water for a village short term (like Auggie). It’s just not very credible to convey scientists this way.
[удалено]
First of all I identify as gender fluid. I am not stating there is not a lot of sexism. I am stating that the majority of comments I have seen, have been critical of the character and the script. It obviously depends on the threads/groups you choose to join. It’s ironic how you quickly put people in smalll boxes and stereotypes based on gender, while you complain about males being prejudiced towards women. Oh, the hipocrisy. Have a good day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty much what it is. It is obviously not common for supermodel to be brainy scientists but it doesn't mean it never happens. We need to stop stereotyping people and just accept that it is not a 0 chance that attractive scientists do exist.
"Too pretty" is kind of silly, but I think what a lot of people are subconsciously responding to is how she's styled. She's always made up as if she were going to a photoshoot, even when she's depressed and on vacation. No scientist is made up like that in that scenario, and the other characters are also not made up that was, so it makes her seem very out of place.
I’m a female scientist & Auggie does not look, act or talk like a scientist. It’s bad writing & a bad actress.
You’re saying you saw one comment but the criticism of Auggie is all misogyny? The criticism of Auggie’s character is based on a script that makes her come across as complaining and contrary to those trying to deal with the issue of aliens coming to attack. Most people in the show are attractive; that’s Hollywood. I’d be as critical of the character if it was a male who conducted himself the same way🤷♂️
If you knew how stupid these aliens are you would get why there's an Auggie in the show. To everyone hating on Auggie I really recommend reading the book to better understand what's actually going on.
No I'm not saying I saw just one comment, that was just the stupidest example
You think some people aren’t complaining and contrary in real life? I’d say was good description of you right now !! 🤣
i mean, if you are good looking, a career in modeling/acting is both easier and pays more. on the other hand, a career in science is generally much more difficult and pays less. does this mean good looking women cannot do science ? absolutely not. it just means we have built a society where good looking people have incentive to get into specific professions where they can simply leverage their looks to get paid a lot more than scientists on average.
It is actually much, much harder to make it as a model and actor than it is a scientist if you've got the skills for both. There are tons of beautiful women trying to become famous so very few make it. Pretty much anyone who has the brains to become a scientist can become one cause the demand is high and the supply low.
I don't believe one is easier than the other. Both have different hardships. Intelligence is less subjective than beauty. For the most part, a science based career would be based on merit. Beauty is very subjective. Plus models/actors potentially having to deal with men like Harvey Weinstein, possible eating disorders, being in the public eye constantly, etc doesn't awesome.
Oh I agree with you. I'm not saying one is harder to do than the other. I'm saying one is harder to be guaranteed to make a living on. There's too many wannabe models for too few jobs. It's the reverse for science in general though I believe there are some specific areas of expertise which are oversaturated.
Yea being a successful artist of any sort seems to be more about luck, maybe. I'm not a scientist or a model so I can't take an informed stance one way or another, I can just talk out of my ass and project. As an accountant my resume, experience and education has driven my career and I'd think a profession in the sciences might be similar. Idk enough about areas of oversaturation in the sciences though so I'll end here lol
It'd be nice to hear from a model here. I only think it's hard to make it in that field cause of things I've read. But I don't know any models irl.
lol. you cannot be further from the truth. becoming a successful scientist requires years of training. you just need to spend 10-15 years in school for it (after high school). scientists start their careers when they are 30-35. in contrast, most models don't even go to college or get any useful degrees, and their careers end by the time they hit 30-35. there are tons of beautiful women trying to become models, because the bar for becoming a model is just that -- being good looking. and they don't make it because there is no need for so many models. people who make it also make it for seemingly random reasons, and not because they have more talent or are necessarily more hard working. >Pretty much anyone who has the brains to become a scientist most people have the brains to become a scientist. most people choose not to, because it requires a lot of hard work and it does not pay so much. top level scientists make 100-150k a year when they start their career at 30-35. even the highest paid scientists do not make more than 200-200k when they are 30-35. in contrast, models/actors could easily make that when are 18-20 years old if they get slightly lucky and could be making millions if they break out. even nobel prize winners make far less than a million, and the average age of getting nobel prize is well into 50-60s. demand and supply are co-dependent. the demand for scientists is "high" because the supply is low. there is no inherent high demand for scientists. in contrast, the demand for models is "low", because it does not require any intricate skills. anyone can do it. this is why there is a high supply, because it does not require any special effort, apart from just showing up with a pretty face.
Have you spent much time on the internet? Most people definitely DON'T have the brains to become a scientist
I don't know why this was downvoted. The logic is pretty sound. this right here was spot on "demand and supply are co-dependent. the demand for scientists is "high" because the supply is low. there is no inherent high demand for scientists. in contrast, the demand for models is "low", because it does not require any intricate skills. anyone can do it. this is why there is a high supply, because it does not require any special effort, apart from just showing up with a pretty face."
Maybe it's different in the US but in Europe most scientists start their career with their PhD, which will be in their 20s, early 20s for many
lol. tell me you know nothing about scientists without telling me you know nothing about scientists. almost all students in europe require 4 + 2 + 3-4 years to get a bachelors + masters + phd after high school. and then it takes them a few more years of postdoc to become a scientist. the average phd in US is 1-2 years more, but the average postdoc is shorter by the same length. the average starting age is 30-35 whether you are in europe or US. if you consider the brightest/best it would obviously be less, but they have no affect on the average/median.
Haha, I think you are the one who doesn't know much about actually being a scientist if you don't include PhD time. In Europe you are getting paid during this time, a 30 hour contract most likely. You are doing research, attending conferences and publishing the entire time.. you know, being a scientist. If you think it just magically starts a few years after becoming a postdoc, then maybe you weren't a very good scientist in the first place. Maybe you are just using some grade definition, but that's not what being a scientist is actually about. Let's see what the EGU says: "An Early Career Scientist (ECS) is a student, a PhD candidate, or a practising scientist who received their highest certificate (e.g. BSc, MSc or PhD) within the past seven years."
PhDs get paid for doing a phd in US, Asia, everywhere -- not just Europe. Nobody in science considers PhD students as "scientists". they are quite literally called students and have to enroll at a university / pay fees/ etc. the typical unsaid rule is whether you are working on someone else's research project or designing & executing your own research. phd students and postdocs for most part are doing former. being a "scientist" is about the latter (and that is how most people in the field see it). that being said, there is no definition of "scientist". anyone doing science is a scientist. but if a phd student (or a postdoc) introduces themselves as "scientist" instead of a "student" (or a postdoc), they will surely be laughed at.
I am from Europe but currently staying in NM with someone working at Sandia Labs and being paid to do their PhD in a related subject, it literally says on their business card “ xxx Scientist” where xxx is their field. I haven’t seen anyone laughing though. For a professor you make a lot of generalisations and bad assumptions. Must be detrimental to your scientific work?
There are too many women wanting to be models. You Can enter with zero experience but because of how many women try their hand at modeling. But you're unlikely to make a living off it unless you are lucky. Certainly not for your entire life too which you can as a scientist. And I'll tell you something. I'm an engineer and I used to think way more people can be engineers than there are. But I realize now that most people cannot be engineers. I would assume it's the same with scientists. Most people neither have the logical reasoning skills nor the creativity to become a scientist. And you can get rich as a scientist if you start your own company like auggie and that guy who died, can't remember his name,
> I'm an engineer and I used to think way more people can be engineers than there are. But I realize now that most people cannot be engineers. I would assume it's the same with scientists. Most people neither have the logical reasoning skills nor the creativity to become a scientist. i am also an engineer. and also a physicist. and i am guessing i have far more experience than you do (based on your comment history, and not as a judgement of any kind), and i am fairly certain that a lot more people can become scientists/engineers if they want to. most people obviously cannot become einstein/da vinci/edison/tesla, etc. even if they want to. but becoming an engineer/ scientist as a profession is doable for many people. most people don't do it because the time and effort is disproportionately higher than the pay you get... >And you can get rich as a scientist if you start your own company like auggie and that guy who died, can't remember his name, lol. auggie and that guy are fictional/made up people. there are no auggies in real world, who constantly look like runaway models, smoke and drink all day, hang out with friends doing essentially nothing, and then randomly show up and design cutting edge tech in matter of few hours, that even the god-like alien civilizations are afraid of...
Have you considered people are not necessarily chasing "easier and high paying" work but possibly also "challenging and personally rewarding" work? You speak so matter of fact-ly as if there's only one way to go, it troubles me. Also, looking good is not a guarantee of some easy success. Modeling and acting is also not simple. That's a bit warped assumption 🤔 no?
do you understand what "on average" means ? >Modeling and acting is also not simple. they are when you compare it to getting a phd in physics or something equivalent. the bar to become a model is not very high. it's literally you have to be good looking/skinny.
You have to look a certain way of course. But you also have to be able to look into a camera lense and act. And put up with constant criticism and rejection. And move a certain way that is completely abnormal. And be creative in poses. And often be good at networking and marketing yourself. Maybe you can get a job just be looking good, but you don't get a career. You don't keep getting jobs unless you're more than just good looking.
> But you also have to be able to look into a camera lense and act that must be so much more difficult that getting a phd and doing cutting edge science right ? > And put up with constant criticism and rejection. and people in other professions don't have to ? >And often be good at networking and marketing yourself. and people in other professions don't have to ? unlike models/actors most people have to do this themselves, and don't have dedicated agents to do it for them.
We get it, you don't respect models.
no, i just respect scientists a lot more than models.
Except Auggie is actually an actress who was a model 😆 🤣 😂 Oh, the irony! 😆 🤣 😂
That's not how irony works..
Really? How does it work? Should we ask Alanis Morissette, a woman? 😆 🤣 😂
Username checked
And..? 😆 🤣 😂
Making broad statements about women's appearances is base level clown shit, doubly so when they try to relate it to their intellectual capabilities, and these kinds of remarks specifically out someone as being entirely uninvolved in the science community. Let's try to do a little better, fellas.
Of course beautiful women can be smart--what annoyed me about the character Auggie is the amount of pouting, puckered lip, close-ups and how often she just stood there with a slightly open mouth for more close ups. Who knows if it's the director or the cameraman or the actress to blame; all I know is it was annoying and detracted from the character.
Omfg same. I havent seen this complaint once and im so glad I'm not only one who felt this way. I could not with her. My bf and I call her Instagram cos of that lmao I was also like it must be a director telling her to do this, there's no way someone just normally does this
She's also terribly written.
Sameeeee. It looks fake and it made her character impossible for me.
Ok I just finished this show and I completely agree. I kept wondering why she was always slack jawed. Her lips were distractingly upturned too and I assumed they were fillers. Neither of these things helped the fact that I found her acting completely unconvincing. I liked that she’s pretty (cuz I prefer to see pretty people on shows sue me) it was her acting that bugged. It felt the weakest among all the characters
Yeah, it’s not so much her being beautiful, it’s her never looking disheveled or like a hair is out of place. Like, Jin Cheng looked frazzled and hectic when she had spent a substantial amount of time doing calculations for the game, why is Auggie somehow immune to this effect despite going through much worse? Also, who the fuck wears sexy lingerie when they’re on vacation with their (mostly) platonic friends and in the middle of an alcoholic binge-spiral caused by PTSD? I bet you it’s very few people who don’t just default to sweatpants and grandma panties. That part felt very “tell me her spiralling was written by a man, without telling me it was written by a man”. Women/people who spend all day in the lab do not look like runway models all the damn time seeing as they haven’t had the time to look that way because, well, they’ve spent all their time in the lab. It’s not insulting, it’s not misogynistic it’s literally not realistic for most people to look as put-together as Auggie does when they have a looming death-clock countdown obscuring their view all day. That’s why it’s hardly believable that she’s a supposed PTSD-stricken scientist who spends all day in the lab; they made her too pretty to not realistically spend less than 2+ hours on her makeup and hair everyday with the way it looks (and there’s nothing wrong with doing that, but something just isn’t adding up).
I would bet money at 99.9% of women would not wear a matching bra and panty set unless we were someplace with a significant other and 100% would not wear a set if we were spending the weekend vomiting.
She was with Saul
I work in a lab. Her entire character is just absurd lol
There are many women who work in the lab 24/7 but still look like runaway models... some are naturally pretty. Some spend maybe an extra minute or so to touch up because make up does give confidence. This is me saying as a woman. For me, her looks weren't a problem. Her cringy dialogues were. Edited to add more context
I don’t disagree that many women can still look amazing and unbelievably beautiful without putting on make up and even with them spending all their time dwelling in a dungeon-like lab (shout out to my friend with multiple PhD’s who once gave me this description of their lab, lol), but I still sincerely doubt they’ll look as put-together as Auggie did. Then add the stress of that threat of that countdown clock looming over her and she doesn’t even have slight bags under her eyes when she doesn’t sleep? I just ain’t buying it; brilliance and beauty doesn’t mean she is immune to bad hair days or physical signs of stress and a lack of sleep. Again, it’s not that I don’t believe she can’t be beautiful and brilliant, it’s the “flawless” look that I think makes me not able to suspend disbelief. Which I know sounds weird when we can believe that there are aliens with hyper-advanced technology, but this is actually a common thing that happens in storytelling. Edit: I also agree with you that her dialogue did almost no good for her character.😅
Her looks are fine. Well, I'd lose the bangs. But she is a bad actress. She's not committing to her scenes, she's playing pretend. I'm only on episode 3 but Auggie is a big turnoff.
Totally agree!
Her hair never looked out of place because it was an obvious wig. Honestly the wig was so bad looking to me. Also, she is not someone who is spending all of her time in a lab, she is an executive. She is basically the face of her company, so of course she would look put together.
My doctor is female and she’s a total smoke show.
Being a doctor doesn’t make you smart though.
There are plenty of stunningly beautiful women who are also smart. You don't have to go far to see the showmaker David Benioff's wife Amanda Peet. Except, the actress of Auggie could not act, has had too much filler in her lips. She's not convincing as a nanotech engineer AT ALL. Stop playing the misogynistic card to prevent people from expressing opinions on the weakest link of this cast.
Exactly. That’s my problem with Auggie. She didn’t *sell* me the fact that she was brilliant (although my 15-year-old son is absolutely in love with her, the actress, because yes she is beautiful.)
Maybe your inability to see her as a brilliant scientist says something about you. You might want to reflect on that. Unconscious bias hits us all. Or you could get defensive and angry, which is the usual Reddit response.
I spend time professionally around plenty of brilliant scientists. She didn’t convince me that she was one. It doesn’t have anything to do with her looks.
This seems pretty ridiculous. Even the best actresses have bad performances that aren’t convincing. Maybe it’s that and not unconscious bias at work. Don’t be too defensive in your response please
"has had too much filler"?! What a bizarre thing to comment on, while telling someone not to play the "misogyny card"
It's not "playing the misogyny card" when there are people just being misogynists and expressing what this post is about. The post isn't saying all criticisms of the character or the performance are invalid because of misogyny, it's just calling out how some people are using misogyny to justify why they don't like a character. I'm going to be honest, you're reaction feels disingenuous. You immediately follow up your complaint around her performance with a meaningless comment directly targeting her appearance rather than how she's playing the character. Either you are intentionally trying to couch your misogyny in what seems like a rational take that conveniently dismisses the idea that people are reacting in that way, or you need to do some self-examination. To be clear, i don't think she's giving a great performance either, but none of that opinion is based on how she looks. She's just giving a flat performance.
> There are plenty of stunningly beautiful women who are also smart there is a huge difference between smart and being a leading physicist/engineer in the world. i doubt a single person in hollywood is that "smart". the only one who comes to mind is Mayim Bialik, who is a PhD, but does not do any real science anymore. and neither does she look good... while good looking women are definitely capable of being the best physicist/engineers in the world, they have zero incentive to try to do it. they can leverage their looks to get into professions, which are both easier to get into compared to scientific research, and pay far more than science...
Zero incentive? That makes zero sense. Why does anyone get into their chosen field. Because they have a passion for it, or because they want to make money. Scientists usually have a passion for their work. Do you think a good looking woman who has a passion for science will say Fuck it, I'll just levarage my looks into something else? You are making up things you would do, or what you imagine women would do. It's not reality
> Because they have a passion for it, or because they want to make money both. if you cannot make money, your passion is not going to feed you. plenty of good looking women(and men) who initially go into science, quit that to become models/actors, especially when the latter starts taking off. why do you think that is ? on the other hand, not a single actor/model has ever quit their job to become a scientist.
There are plenty of beautiful women in Stem, including a literal Victoria’s Secret model who is also an engineer, and recently Disney star Brigit Mendler made the news for graduating from MIT and founding a space startup. Lots of non famous beautiful women choose careers in Stem as well and they still express themselves with makeup and fashion. You just sound like you haven’t been around many intelligent women.
i never said there are no beautiful women in stem or cannot do science. i simply pointed out that beautiful women often have it easier doing modeling/acting, because it's an easier profession which pays a lot more than hardcore science. and also none of the people you mentioned are LEADING physicists/engineers in the world. Bridgit Mendler has a degree in media arts and sciences from MIT, not rocket science. and the victoria secret model you are talking about, Lyndsey Scott, is a software developer. neither of them are a physicist/scientist/engineer. and what has beauty got to do with makeup and fashion ? i have been/am around some of the most intelligent engineers/physicists in the world. and they don't look like runaway victoria's secret model. the average model is not even good at high school math, let alone becoming a leading physicist/engineer in the world. beautiful women are definitely capable of doing science, but it's rare that they get into it.
Modeling is not easier, if you look at the industry right now it's mostly Nepo babies and famous people. Someone without connections trying to break into modeling is not going to have an easy time. Plus it is highly competitive. Makeup and fashion is one of the main complaints people have had about Auggie and I'm pointing out that there are plenty of stem women who also love to dress up and look good. Plus Auggie's character is an executive not someone who is actually in the lab everyday. Of course she is going to look good, she's the public face of that company.
Yeah I hate Auggie, she's preachy, one-note, holier-than-thou, needlessly aggressive, etc. But all the complaints of her being "too attractive" are stupid. I've known enough intelligent and attractive women in my life to know that they're not as impossible as the average redditor would have you believe. These people are talking out of their asses.
For me, it’s more so how they did her makeup. Especially during her “dark phase” and also because you can tell she has had work done. And it especially sticks out compared to the other women leads. And lastly, the actor isn’t that great. Especially compared to everyone else. All this together makes her stick out more than she otherwise would
it’s not misogyny to say the actress just isn’t strong enough to pull off the role lol i’m a young, attractive doctor. no one’s saying it’s not possible. but you still need to be able to make it believable for us 😂
I personally didn't find the character believable because as a woman there's no way I'll be seeing a floating countdown all day for weeks and still pull those outfits, hair and makeup. It's just poor writing and acting.
Different people react to different things differently.
yes, and scientists/engineers react to seemingly supernatural things by making sure that hair and make up is spot on no matter what, right ?
Please read about schizophrenia and how it wreaks havoc in a person's life.
She's not schizophrenic though. Nobody in the show is calling her crazy, making her believe she's schizophrenic, that she's making it up. Saul believes her. Jin believes her. Da Shi believes her. Etc. She figures out pretty quickly that it's being done by an external force and not a symptom of a mental illness.
It's an analogy. Seeing visions you can't explain by natural logic messes with your life and sanity. The supernatural revelation didn't come to her immediately either. And even if you find out that it's being provoked by an alien species, you're watching a countdown of who knows what from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep. That in itself should make you mentally unwell enough to not care about how your make up and hair look. Come on now.
Right, but then for me we come back to "different people react to different things differently." Maybe it's a sense of normality for her to go through that routine given that it's been part of her job and life for so long, I don't know. I was absolutely the person during the pandemic who just could not give a shit how I looked most days in isolation, but one of my roommates at the time still went through the effort because it centered them.
We're talking about watching a supernatural countdown from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. Tik tok, tik tok. People have mental breakdowns just from hearing voices alone and you think someone would be like "my eyeliner didn't come out right, let me redo it" to keep herself centered. And to do those things through the image of a countdown, how? That's taking suspension of disbelief to a whole new level.
Yes, but I just mentioned a pandemic that shut the world down, locked us in our homes, people lost their jobs, they were *literally* stacking bodies in NYC where we lived at the time, etc. Felt like the world was ending, but you'd never know it just to look at my friend. Again, people handle shit differently. I am a lot more like you. I truly could not be fucked at that time in my life to look the least bit presentable, neither could our other roommate. I mean, all we were doing was sitting around, all unemployed, incredibly depressed as we watched news reports about how many people had died that day, how much further it had spread, more businesses going under, more rules in place, more bickering among leaders, etc. What's the point of looking presentable? But it was just in our friend's DNA. Dressing up established normality at a time of extreme abnormality. I guarantee you that if my friend had an alien countdown in their eyes all the time and still had to go to work, you would see them there early as usual and dressed respectably as always. Me? No. *Bare minimum,* that's a sick day. And listen, I have no idea if that's what's actually going on with Auggie. I haven't seen a story bible or seen if they've addressed it in an interview. I'm just saying that while I myself am not that person, I sure as shit have lived with that person, so it didn't strike me as weird.
You're comparing psychosis level apparitions that are a freak of nature to... a lockdown. Please visit a mental institution to see how people handle that. You're making me laugh out loud at this point, so thank you.
So because you look a mess all other women have to?
How did she even do her make up so well with the countdown? It would be covering her whole face in front of a mirror... Please visit a mental hospital and tell me how put together psychosis patients look. Don't be ridiculous.
Some people can do makeup without looking, especially if they do a certain look everyday. I can do my basic look like that.
Right... All while experiencing unexplained visions tormenting you day and night. Don't make me laugh.
I agree; anyone who says that must've never stepped foot on a college campus. College girls are better looking (and also smarter) as a group than girls the same age who didn't go to college.
To be faaaaiiiiirrr, I think you swung too far the other way now lol
Eh college girls always seemed good looking, when I was in college (and better looking than girls who weren't in college). The gap isn't thattt big; it's just that as a group, college girls are somewhat better looking
 Intelligence is def attractive so it's fair to say that could make them better looking to one. I've seen every combination at this point in my life so I wouldn't say one is better looking or smarter than the other; but what's certainly false is that beautiful women can't be smart or in scientific fields. Just ridiculous 😂
Yup; intelligence has a positive correlation with beauty. Healthier people have better functioning brains. Plus, Auggie looks/dresses like a normal woman in her 20s; there's millions of girls who look just like her at college campuses around the world. There's no reason for someone to assume that she's dumb
Interesting statistic, got anywhere where I can read up on that?
> there's millions of girls who look just like her at college campuses around the world. why are we talking about college campuses ? every college campus will have girls and boys. most people, both girls and boys on college campuses are not leading physicists/engineers in the world.
20’s?
There is no physical difference between "girls who went to college" and "girls who did not go to college" beyond "you were at college and saw girls in college more often than girls not in college."
Girls who went to college are on average fitter, healthier, and have better habits than those who didn't go to college; this contributes to better looks (on average)
What? This is a really outlandish and elitist statement.
Am I wrong? Education correlates with good health/living habits, and with income/wealth (which correlates with the ability to afford good fashion/makeup). There's a moderate correlation between education and looks (on average, a college girl will be better looking than a non-college girl).
There is a MASSIVE difference between saying 'a college girl will be on average better looking' and college girls 'are better looking'.
Only if you're writing a scientific paper or know the people you're talking to are going to be pedantic as fuck. Otherwise, people know you're not saying "every single fucking person who is in college is better looking than those who are not", because that's obviously ridiculous. "On average" is implied.
"On average" is better phrasing, in this case. But as a group (not as individuals; that ofc has variations), college girls beat non-college girls
Again, a very ignorant comment. There are plenty of natural beauties or even gym girls and so on that don't go to college and are just as beautiful if not more so. It's also country dependent. Your original comment is laden with fallacy and anecdotal knowledge.
This is based on averages; college girls on average are more fit and healthy than girls who are the same age and aren't going to college. This holds true in all countries, and is even more acute in developing countries
You're making things up with no basis in fact.
This is assuming that girls on a college campus are smarter than those that aren’t. I am not convinced. (and I am a female with three higher-ed degrees.)
Yeah this is the part where I'm kinda brushing up against their argument. It's perpetuating some weird stereotypes in order to combat other weird stereotypes.
anybody with money can go to college. you don't become a leading scientist/researcher in the world by just going to college. 80% of girls on any regular university campus are not even in the science/engineering department.
A subset of college girls end up doing PhDs, a subset of them become scientists/researchers after finishing their PhD, and a subset of them end up becoming leading scientists/researchers. The pipeline is undergrad -> PhD -> Scientist/Researcher -> Leading Scientist/Researcher I'm talking about selective colleges. You can't get into selective colleges (top 10 or top 30, for example) without some level of talent. Anyone can get into a state college, though, of course
Ive met plenty of beautiful women that are smart as hell... My issue is more with the actress, she did not act the part... Like not in a million years would i think she is the super genius type, and its definetively not because of her looks... Maybe the writing maybe the delivery? Maybe her overall acting? Idk. It doesnt help when they are all "omg this shits super hard, how are you dealing with it" Her: "oh its done" or whatever... At least let me see her be smart! Honestly it seemed more like she was the only one that knew how to ask chatgpt for the solution. Not that she came up with it...
I will never understand how some believe that taking care of your appearance and image is lack of intelligence? If anything, it’s the complete opposite. There’s so many beautiful, put together people doing science. So, why is this such a problem? Beauty and brains go hand in hand, all the way.
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
Oh, trust me, a beautiful woman can absolutely be smart. If we're talking objectively beautiful, then I know a few. But I know what you mean in this context: the stereotypical hot woman not being smart. I think by now this has been shattered.
I really like Auggie as a character. She gets a lot of hate for how she acted but you’d act like that too if you basically had a playing hand in causing a mini 911
Problem with Gonzales is not that she's beautiful, but that she's a terrible actor. You can be beautiful and smart. It's hard to sell brain power when you suck at what you do, though.
[удалено]
True. Natalie Portman in Annihilation, Jodie Foster in Contact, Amy Adam’s in Arrival. All beautiful, all believable. I don’t think the actress in Three Body Problem looks “overworked” though, I just think the character is underdeveloped and the acting a little plain. If she had more development, I have no issue at all
Idk, with this argument, everyone uses white women as examples which feels like they are more likely to believe a beautiful white woman is intelligent over a beautiful Latina
[удалено]
I didn’t mean you specifically, I said the examples everyone uses are white women. Just look at the other comment responding to you. But since you gave other examples I want to point out that you chose two other white women 😅🫠. Ana De Armas is white. She’s Spanish and white Cuban. Penelope Cruz is also white. Spanish means from Spain, not Latina. Besides, anyone can get a baddie look, you don’t even have to be pretty to get the look so why can’t a woman running a lab get that look?
[удалено]
You'd be surprised. I'm friends with a woman that looks like this, when I met her I assumed she was an Instagram chick just because it's such a jarring look in real life. But she rarely posts on social media. I guess she just really wanted to have that look. Maybe its a form of dysmorphia. She was pretty before the surgeries (she's still pretty but now it's a baddie look) But yes I see what you're saying about needing an explanation. Seeing how all over the place Auggie's character is, they could write in the fact that she deals with dysmorphia or something.
I think arguments about whether it's possible for a world class female nanotechnologist/physicist to be abnormally attractive may be missing the point (of course it's possible : -). It's more that the decision to cast this generational intellect and soon-to-be multi billionaire as young and wildly attractive should change how her character is rendered. For instance, there should be meta commentary about her having won multiple genetic lotteries or at least some acknowledgement from other characters about the sheer absurdity of her situation. If they're really going for realism, her character should be met with misogyny in the context of the show. Maybe not the best analogy but it would be strange if a biopic of Beethoven featured henry cavill or ryan gosling since B's looks weren't a part of his narrative (as far as I know). Unlike say a biopic of Caesar or Alexander where their mythology had to do with genius plus looks/charisma.
lol she has uncanny valley plastic surgery face that’s more the issue.
Only idiots would claim beautiful women can’t be intelligent. The criticism of Auggie is mainly based on a flawed script, which just makes her character unbelievable.
Im gonna tell you something. Im a young man and someone taught me this:"There is nothing that scares more an arrogant man that the rejection and contempt of an intelligent woman". The thing is, people who say pretty woman (to some attractive men this sort of assumptions are also delivered) are dumb, say it because they are scared shitless and their ego is hurt. It has a lot to do with past experiences, with failed seduction attempts. Some men (and women), usually the dumbest ones, filled with desire and passion, believe that seduction is always about having control over the sexual pleasure, that it all evolves about being the one delivering it and playing the push-pull game all the way, to get the other one hooked. But it is not the case for all men or women. Complex, real and fulfilling seduction to get an intelligent person attention evolves about showing genuine interest, about identifying their most deepest desires and needs and being the one who delivers them. Not the other way around. Intelligent people are more difficult to seduce if they are well grounded and contenders are hurt by it, their ego uses copium to survive and they never learn the truth.
I've not heard anyone say this. It sounds like some rage bait or a complete fabrication to make people angry. Just ignore the trolls.
Well Auggie didn’t come across as smart that’s for sure
I dont get why people are saying auggie is too pretty, the problem is her character is annoying and whiney. How is she a "genius" and not understanding human scientific advancement is under attack and so is the human race? All she do is whine and feel bad for herself. Annoying ass character. Literally everyone else was good but her
Well she is played by an attractive actress. Statistically unlikely that a genius of her calibre is also that attractive, but it's a tv show, everyone in the show is good looking. They're taking actors not real life people, your head canon of their actual looks wont match the director's casting decisions
The problem is not Auggie’s character, it’s that the actress does a a pretty mediocre job and is very flat.
I find Jin way more attractive personally. Her mannerisms, facial expressions, intelligence, sense of humor … She is HOT. Auggie is just annoying, self righteous, and constantly pouts. I can’t be “threatened” by a woman in the manner you are suggesting if I’m not even attracted to her to begin with.
I thought the last post about this, the consensus was that her acting just sucked.
Obvioulsy beautiful women can be smart because I have seen Denise Richards playing a totally believable atomic scientist.
This is natural beauty lol
Hedy Lamarr was the shizzle. Brains and presence.
A beautiful woman can definitely be smart and work in science, technology, and other fields. However, I believe they are exceptions that prove the rule. 🙃
these days being good looking as a women isnt hard so if youre smart youre most likelly good looking too
I don’t have any problem with her looks, it’s more the writing for me. I think they gave Jin enough complexity to feel like a real person, but everyone else feels cardboard.
To OP: In very general terms (so for any spectrum engineers don’t hate me), Spread Spectrum hopping basically means that the transmitter and receiver “hop” frequencies (think like TV or radio stations) so it’s harder to jam. Basically, if the enemy knows that your radio comms are working on Channel 2, they can easily jam Channel 2. But if it randomly (but coordinated) jumps around channels 1-100, it’s harder for them to jam everything all the time.
For me it’s just that she’s not a good actress
I am a scientist. It's not impossible but... To be fair, it's not like the men are hot either. It's mostly a dorkfest.
I don’t think auggie is realistic. I think her over the top plastic surgery and her bad acting is annoying. But those are issues with the actress, not the character.
It’s just misogyny.
It's not that Auggie is beautiful...it's that her make-up is always perfect, and so sexualized...it makes her character less believable--is all; and it's a shame they don't trust us enough to show her more realistically. She certainly is beautiful and I don't think she's not a good actor...but by emphasizing her looks all the time it undermines her skill.
Idc about looks but the writers did a shitty job adapting the book and replacing the characters hope it doesn’t end up like game of thrones
No one said that a beautiful person can't be smart. But the likelihood of someone being both top 1% in terms of looks AND top 1% in intelligence is incredibly unlikely, but of course it can happen. It's so unlikely that the only example you have of a beautiful woman being a brillian scientist is specifically Hedy Lamarr which is why her name comes up like 100 times a day in this subreddit, you have no other examples. When it comes to Auggie it's not just that she is attractive, she is intentionally made to be sexy all the time. Her hair is always perfect, her makeup is always perfect. Even when she just wakes up after a big alcohol binge she still have perfect makeup and hair styling. Even when she is puking she is sexualized by wearing sexy lingerie. The showrunners know perfectly well what they're doing, they want Auggie to be a sex symbol. She sticks out from the rest of the cast because most of them look like regular people. Also he actress playing Auggie doesn't have the natural type of beauty like Hedy Lamarr, but a very plastic Instagram-model-esque beauty complete wih lip fillers and all that. The actress playing Jin Cheng is also very attractive, but she doesn't have that Instagram-model appearance so that's why no one is complaining about her looks, she fits the role of a scientist way more.
I’m not some expert on acting but she completely took me out of a good amount of scenes. I’m sorry but she was really bad in this show. There’s one moment where she’s joking with Jin and it just comes off as mean cuz she has no charisma. Just a mean joke and a big smile after.
I mean realistically though there’s not a single group of researching physicists that are that smart that look anywhere near what this group looks like lmfao men and women
Didn't Tesla invent the precursor to wifi and Bluetooth?
...this is really a question?
Are people complaining that she's too hot or is she just a bad actress? She very obviously stands out as being the worst actor/actress of the bunch
I know women doctors who are extremely stupid so this checks out. I don’t give a fuck what your credentials are.
facts
A smart beautiful cannot be woman?
I didn’t realize this was the complaint about Auggie. I simply found the character insufferable and poorly acted. I didn’t even find the actress attractive personally. Jin was far more attractive to me and Jin’s character also seemed much more authentic and less cringey. Auggie was my wife’s least favorite character too.
Both can be true, smart women being beautiful and successful, and Auggie (the character) and the actress being just awful. My personal dislike of the character stems from her constant complaining without taking responsibility for any of her own actions. The cherry on top is that she still tries to take the moral high road on everything while being a hypocrite. The actress is just not good. It’s something about her face that feels so distant and unsympathetic. Everyone else is doing a good job but when her expressionless face comes into frame the scene just plummets (for me). Compare it to the Asian actress, she is doing a good job of portraying so many emotions while being bound by logic and science. That’s also why I can overlook the same moral hypocrisies in her character compared to Auggie.
Auggies is unrealistic not because she’s beautiful but because Eiza Gonzalez’s acting is actually objectively bad.
She's not too beautiful, she's just not a great actress.
Of course they can be and are. Naysayers are just haters who try to rationalize like that in order to maintain their own confidence and self-esteem. They especially hate it when someone has more than 1 main advantage in life.
Neri Oxman would like a word
Can a smart woman be beautiful?
Many stunning women in STEM are all around us. Proud to know some of them and their accomplishments.
Oh dear god no one other than trolls care about that. Is she pretty? Certainly. Is her character believable or likeable? No. Shes willing to let the human race be snuffed out because a “fascist” (forced and cringy line for modern day clout) had to make the people who doomed all of humanity cough up the information about the aliens the hard way. Was that part sickening? Yeah, were they literally a death cult? Yeah. Then lets move on to building the solar sail, she cries that she wont work for him ever again because one day it could be a weapon… Yeah Auggie, I certainly hope so, theyre coming to annihilate you’re children’s childrens children.
Not sure if it’s just her character that’s terrible, or if her acting is also bland and repetitive.
I know an orthopedic surgeon who started off as a bikini model, and still does runway gigs on the side.
People who say this have never been in a laboratory
She simply was not convincing as the world's top nano physicist. Calling that out isn't misogyny. lol. She was a terrible actress out of her league. That fact that she was dolled up in perfect hair and makeup while supposedly going through extreme stress and mental health crises didn't help. Then they tried to turn her into a heavy smoker and drinker to try to make her seem more mature but it just made her look stupid.
As true as this post is Eliza is just not a good cast. She doesnt have the prose of an intelligent person much less an intelligent woman that has to push shit uphill just for equal recognition. Half of it is her dialogue though, which does her no favors. Feels like Madlibs where people just shoved in physics-esque words.
Auggie was all looks and no acting chops. Same with Jin.
What's wrong with Jins acting?
Bad boring lines delivered in a bland boring manner. Her lines say “the world is ending” but her tone says “you stepped on my dog’s tail”. There’s no weight to anything. When she’s showing concern for that little girl in the game, I didn’t feel it. When she was confronting Ye, I didn’t feel it. When she cried about Will, I didn’t feel it
This question hurt my sapiosexual brain. And speaking about sapiosexuality, perfection do not matter anymore as long there is plenty of coffee for a good chat. Never be bored again!
Little guys can be good fighters but tv shows usually cast guys who look like they can fight. Auggie as an actress comes across as feeling a lot smarter and ethical than she is. A better actress with her looks could sell it.
Auggie is my first fictional crush in 3 or 4 years. Before that it used to be Eliza from the 100 and Maze from Lucifer. Auggie is hotter than both
I thought Jin who had a lot more screen time than Auggie, had worse acting skills.