A Case Study In Hotness: Dream Girl Edition
By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (43)
Introduction and Purpose
Shake out those lab coats and shine up the goggles, it’s Science Friday! Did you spot it? The complex conundrum at the center of the Dream House trailer? No, Junior Scientists, not “Why are two Brits and an Aussie portraying Americans?” Try again. No, no not “Why does this trailer give everything away? WHYYYYY??” The Scientific Community does not get bogged down in such imponderables. We deal in certainties and instead turn our impartial and scientific eye to discover which Dream House leading lady is most likely to make you toss and turn?
Hypothesis
A side by side comparison of the physical beauty of two actresses will yield concrete and empirical conclusions about their ability to steam up your goggles. Don’t question our methodology, it’s Science.
Subjects
To be honest, sometimes the Scientific Community has a tendency to channel our grandmothers. So upon inspecting the above header images, we may have snapped something along the lines of, “Get that hair out of the way so we can see your beautiful faces.” Then we offered the specimens some Werther’s Originals.
Figs. 1 & 2: Ms. Watts chose to remove her shirt as well as her hair. Who are we to argue?
1. Rachel Weisz a.k.a. The One With Brown Hair
2. Naomi Watts a.k.a. The One With Blonde Hair
Data
In a fit of whimsy, we here in the Scientific Community have decided on a dream theme for this particular Case Study. We’ve brought out the Highly Scientific Wardrobe of Standard Fantasy (not dragons and maidens…unless you’re into that sort of thing) Fetishistic Wear. Our first scenario is “The Cross Dresser.”
Fig. 3: Fedorable.
Inspired, perhaps, by Ms. Watts, Ms. Weisz has opted to eschew her shirt, displaying some alluring sternum and distracting abdomen. The Scientific Community notes Ms. Weisz’s strong eye contact and well-rounded features. The real feather in this specimen’s cap, however, is her pale creamy epidermis which contrasts beautifully with the color of the suit.
Fig. 4: Did you want to finish dressing? Oh, oh you’re done? Fascinating…
Not to be outstripped by the competition, Ms. Watts, as you see, chose to forgo pants. We, the Scientific Community, are truly dazzled by those heavenly hamstrings and gorgeous glutes. The saddle shoes are a nice touch as well. In fact, we like everything we’re seeing except the smudges on our freshly polished lab table.
***
The next scenario in our Case Study In Hotness and Freudian Imagery is “The Really Tight And Uncomfortable Clothing That Is Lovely To Look At But Is, To Use A Highly Technical Term, A B*tch To Get On And Off.” We’ve asked the specimens to revisit the Highly Scientific Wardrobe of Standard Fantasy And Fetishistic Wear, giving them free rein to choose the organ squeezing outfit of their choice.
Fig. 5: Saloon Girl: Tastes Of Sarsaparilla and Syphilis.
Going for the “Deadwood” (emphasis on the wood) look, Ms. Watts almost makes our dreams come true with an intricately boned (emphasis on the-okay, we’ll stop) corset and skimpy skirt. However, is that a rather large melanocytic nevus the Scientific Community see on the specimen’s thigh? Now visions of melanomas dance in our heads. Not hot, Ms. Watts.
Fig. 6: Holy Trinity!
Well, um, all thoughts of melanomas are banished with this futuristic ensemble. In remaining completely clothed yet revealing every delectable curve, Ms. Weisz has managed to beat Ms. Watts at her own game.
***
Ms. Weisz is well in the lead with that last entry but, as is our custom in these Case Studies, we asked the specimens to interact with a member of the opposite sex. Earlier this week, as a special treat, we bundled the entire cast and crew of 2009’s Defiance into the The Highly Scientific Closet Of Movies We Really Thought Would Perform Much Better. The specimens were allowed to choose anyone, anyone at all. The cast has been locked in there since Monday (with the exception of Jamie Bell who we took out to play with ONCE…get off our back…it was for Science) so we, the Scientific Community, apologize for their flushed and rumpled appearance.
Fig. 7: Hey! It’s the most amount of clothing Ms. Watts has worn all day!
Well, even though there was a perfectly good and only gently used Jamie Bell in that closet, Ms. Watts chose her romantic partner and the father of her children, actor Liev Schrieber. Go figure. Full marks for adorability and genuinely happy faces. We’ll even forgive whatever that is that has lodged itself in Ms. Watts’ cleavage.
Fig. 8: Bondage.
Once again passing over young Bell, Ms. Weisz has chosen to liberate her husband, Daniel Craig, from The Highly Scientific Closet Of Movies We Really Thought Would Perform Much Better. Double-Oh-Heaven? License To Thrill? Dr. Oh Yes? The Scientific Community doesn’t know which Bond pun we should use to express our extreme pleasure. So we used them all.
Conclusion
Ms. Weisz wins. Obviously. She would like to graciously thank us for her victory and has a message for you all.
Oh we bet you do. Also, and this is the last time we’ll say it, get that hair out of your face, young lady.
Joanna Robinson knows one of you sticklers will bring this up so, yes, Naomi Watts was BORN in England and moved to Australia when she was a teenager. Stickle it where the sun don’t shine.
Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance
← The "Fetch" Effect: 8 Actors that Hollywood Has Tried, and Failed, to Make Happen | The "Fetch" Effect: 8 Actors that Hollywood Has Tried, and Failed, to Make Happen →
Comments
Posted by: NateS1973 at September 30, 2011 12:23 PM
Stickle it where the sun don’t shine. #Guffaw!
And of course, Weisz wins. She's the one who doesn't look like a furry woodland creature with long ears.