Olivia Cooke Qualifies As Ugly Now?
Who would like her, what a beast
shareYeah did you see that small, slightly discolored area on her face. Gross!
share
MovieChat Forums > Ready Player One (2018) Discussion > Olivia Cooke Qualifies As Ugly Now?
In the novel, Art3mis looks just like her avatar, which is supposedly seriously hot. She does have the same kind of birthmark and the same kind of issues. I guess Olivia is kinda cute but I wouldn't call her "seriously hot". One of the points the novel makes is that Art3mis falls for Wade for who he is, not his looks because in that department, she's way out of her league.
shareall the avatars are ugly as hell, gamers are sick fucks.
shareI think they're pretty cool, except Wades. I fudging hate Final Fantasy.
shareYeah, the avatars of the main 5 were not impressive here, but i think it does fall into the tradition of online games endgame turning into a fashion show more than anything else, resulting in some very strange, but unique looking, characters.
shareThat is not how I remember it at all. The way I remember it, Wade says that Art3mis’ avatar is different from the vast majority of avatars precisely because it’s a regular-looking girl – not ugly by any means, but far from gorgeous. Then when he finally meets her in person, he finds out that she looks exactly like her avatar, except for the birthmark on her face.
shareHe describes her avatar as raven-haired, beautiful, a pretty face: hazel eyes, a pointy chin, rounded cheekbones, and a perpetual smirk. He also notes that her avatar looks more like a scan of a real person than something made up. He also calls the avatars body "unusual".
What I apparently missed and found out while researching her appearance in the novel is that she's 170 cm and 76 kg/5'7" and 168 lbs. So my bad. I would even go so far as saying that Olivia is way hotter, mostly because she's not you know, kinda fat.
76kg at 170cm is fine though. Thats pretty tall for female too btw. The general rule of thumb is height in CM -100 for optimal weight (health-wise).
shareexactly... I laugh hard when they had that rooftop scene...
Very pretty women
ffs why do people have a hard time distinguishing woman, from women?? women is plural, woman is singular!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shareJust a typo... I don't proof read my posts for spelling mistakes...
shareThen you are lazy. Proofireading is an integral part of writing, especially with digital writing, where the spellchecker in the program that you are using knows less than you do; which pretty much describes all of them, at least, when I use them. It’s a lot like Uber’s GPS routes. If you value your readers, and you respect yourself, you distrust AI, and you proof your copy.
If you respect yourself as a writer, you go back and you proof.
Yes SIR!
shareon an online forums where noone gives a fuck proofreading is only needed if your writing is so bad the other person is incapable of understanding your meaning.
shareBit of an insult to people with actual game changing deformities no? That girl is hot and 99.9% of straight fellas would tap that without question even if the birthmark covered the other half of her face.
When she was on about not looking anything like her video game character I was expecting some kind of hole in her face or an actual deformity that would be unattractive to look at but instead it's a mild birthmark. Get real.
Would our main protagonist be so keen if she actually had something nasty on her face? That'd would test his resolve and constitution.
I don't think Samantha was meant to be ugly, in the book or the movie.
Her birthmark was just a reflection of her own insecurity.
Problem is, that insecurity WAS a major plot point in the novel, where she's a shut-in (like all the other main characters). It was absolutely NOT in evidence in the movie, where she was a rebel leader.
they never show real deformities in movies because, surprising noone, real deformities are not nice to look at and it will lower the movie earnings. The point wasnt her being ugly (she wasnt meant to be), it was her being insecure about herself, which the movie portrayed poorly.
shareShe's supposed to be a hot chick that is so insecure over her minor blemish that she'd let (in the novel) a fat, greasy nerd flop around on top of her like an uncoordinated walrus.
shareI have to admit, that description is some of the most effective imagery that I've seen written by anyone.
shareWell, she's a pretty big girl in according to her description in the novel. 5'7 and 168 lbs. Pair that with her birthmark and a world were most people pretend they are hotter than they actually are.
shareThere are plenty of people who you would not qualify as ugly but think of themselves that way.
share