|
|
17 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Wednesday 4/16/03 - 3:29:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
Probably presence, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 5/10/03 - 2:33:02 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think its a little of both.
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 5/10/03 - 4:09:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
Looks.
|
|
ecinue88
Female,
18-29
Eastern US
Joined: 17 yrs, 10 mos ago
1,540 Posts
|
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Monday 5/19/03 - 12:04:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
Danny Devito, Whoopi Goldberg. Definitely presence. If you are very attractive, you have physical presence, but there are a lot of attractive people that haven't made it as celecrities.
|
|
UptownGuy
Male,
30-39
Southern US
Joined: 18 yrs, 1 mos ago
23,258 Posts
|
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Monday 5/19/03 - 12:23:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
looks.
if you won the 'genetic lottery' than you can be a celebrity.
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Wednesday 7/9/03 - 10:00:50 AM EST (GMT-5)
I would have to say it's a combination of both, but presence is probably more important. There are some pretty unattractive celebrities.
|
|
toadstool
Male,
18-29
Midwest US
Joined: 17 yrs, 7 mos ago
175 Posts
|
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Tuesday 7/15/03 - 6:55:00 AM EST (GMT-5)
it starts with looks, but staying power relies on presence
looks die young
|
|
ntropy
Male,
18-29
Western US
Joined: 17 yrs, 7 mos ago
3,188 Posts
|
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Wednesday 7/23/03 - 1:33:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
walter matthau is perfect evidence that it's based on presence, not looks.
|
|
|
17 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 8/8/03 - 6:06:22 AM EST (GMT-5)
Depends on your sex I think. I think there are way more male celebrities that have achieved their status on their presence. But, females are more likely to become celebrities based on their looks. Just my opinion. I'm sure there are women who have become celebrities based on presence and talent, ie Whoopi Goldberg, and umm... Kathy Bates, and... ugh... Camryn Mannheim perhaps. But far more have gotten famous because of their looks. :) Anyways, makes sense to me.
|
Share 
