Miss POG - Salma Hayek vs Kristen Bell
02-20-2009
, 04:13 AM
02-20-2009
, 04:21 AM
02-20-2009
, 04:22 AM
02-20-2009
, 04:46 AM
02-20-2009
, 04:47 AM
02-20-2009
, 04:52 AM
!
02-20-2009
, 04:56 AM
02-20-2009
, 05:49 AM
chim, this was a pic you quoted on the first page of this thread. if this is your definition of "hot", then im not going to argue with you anymore. its just pointless!
i need to take you out more here in las vegas if you seriously think this pic makes her look anything above average. blegh! :P
02-20-2009
, 05:54 AM
02-20-2009
, 06:05 AM
The waist-to-hip curve is IMO the most underrated part of the female body. It's very rarely discussed - I think this is the first mention of it in any Miss POG thread for example - but plays a huge role in where a chick falls on the hotness scale. Hips are usually the first thing you can notice if a woman wearing tight clothing is walking toward you from several blocks away. It's not 100% but you can usually tell if she's going to be hot or at least above average from a couple blocks away, before you have much of an idea what her face looks like or even anything about her breasts if she's wearing a top that covers her chest and is monochromatic. The hip area is the focal point when women are dancing and it's pretty obvious why when you have sex. In pictures, particularly the touched-up type that are commonly posted in hot-girl threads, the waist-hip area is probably the best indicator of how nice their body is because it's the one thing that they can't or don't edit with photoshop.
They can change the angle to make it look more impressive; I think that is in evidence in both pictures in this post as well as the one in the OP of Salma. That's about it though. I mean, they could do a complete reworking since it's possible to edit anything, but I think it's safe to assume that they don't. Skin is massively touched up to look perfectly smooth and radiant. They probably mess with the color and shine in the hair. These celebs have pretty white teeth already but I'm sure they brighten them. In clothed shots they probably wear underwear that squeezes in their ass and even lifts and helps to give it more definition. Even assuming that breasts aren't completely photoshopped to be made bigger or more firm or whatever, which seems a lot more likely to me than changing the hips and waist, with anything that involves more than a small bikini, and probably even that in some cases, you're going to have a lot of lifting and enhancement from the bra or whatever the hell they use for support when they wear backless dresses making a bra impossible. Plus there's a lot they can do there to make them look nicer - changing the angle of the picture, how the model is positioned, directly pushing them up with the model's hands (unfortunately I've never been called to have my hands do this job), arm or something else etc. I'm sure I could go on talking about models' breasts but I'll stop there. The point is that the waist-hip area can't be/isn't manipulated to look far better in the pics than reality nearly as much as other parts of the body by skilled photographers, clothing designers or photoshoppers.
Wow that was a long rant.
If you compare these two pics, which are obviously pretty similar, I have trouble seeing how one could view KB as looking better in any area, whether that's hair, face, shoulders, breasts, rib cage, stomach, belly button, arms, or legs. I could make this post absurdly long by going into detail but on about half those things I think they are about even with PN having a small edge if anything and for other areas PN is clearly better.
The biggest difference in the two pics is the hip and waist area. PN looks eleventy billion times better there. Like Durrrr relative to me in poker better, Alex Jacob against me or antidan in a hair contest better, Hitch or Soah over Durron in a POG mod level of forum participation off better, I'm like a broken record with this, but I would be shocked (and probably will be) to hear someone say that they think KB has more impressive hips. I've been surprised before ITT but this would completely blow me away. They have similarly small waists. KB has pretty run of the mill skinny-girl hips. They aren't bad, I certainly wouldn't describe them as 12 year-old boy hips or anything like that, but I think it would be a stretch to describe them as anything more than maybe a bit above average compared to women with a similar body-fat percentage. PN's hips, on the other hand, could only be accurately described as world class. I'm certainly no modeling expert (though I've written a book's worth of crap ITT) but I would imagine that her hips are the main feature that sets her apart from the ladies who are merely professional models nobody knows by name. They are very broad and the curve from her waist is just about perfect. The flair is substantial enough to be eye-popping noticeable and hot, but it doesn't look absurd like she's wearing a tight corset or something which you can see in Raquel Welch and other '60s bombshells. In this pic, Nemcova is angled in such a way to emphasize her right hip, but even if we ignore that side and look at the more muted left side it's pretty obvious that she completely blows KB (and just about anyone else) out of the water as far as that part of the body goes.
So, yeah, I'm with Jenn on this one. I really don't see what's spectacular about KB in that gold-bikini picture and am completely lost as to how you could look at those two pictures and think the top one is hotter. I honestly think that if you took just those two pics and showed them to all guys 20-35 who had never seen or heard of either then PN would get over 80% of the votes. I guess that's not quite true if it's worldwide because there are probably a lot of places where KB would dominate because she looks more exotic to them, but if it was in Europe, NA, SA, and Australia I think Nemcova's pic would win handily.