A Case Study In Hotness: Lady Mutant(ish) Edition

By Joanna Robinson | Miscellaneous | March 25, 2011 |

By Joanna Robinson | Miscellaneous | March 25, 2011 |

Introduction and Purpose

Two Science Fridays in a row! How could you be so lucky?! Last Friday, after our in-depth and exhaustive comparison of the male mutants, we here in the Scientific Community felt a little hinky (a completely legit and scientific term) about neglecting the female contingent of the upcoming X-Men: First Class. And while we realize that the lovely Miss Byrne will not be portraying a mutant, our only other option was Miss January Jones. With all due respect to Miss Jones, The Scientific Community would rather gouge our own eyes out with a pipette (because it’s dull, it’ll hurt more).

Hypothesis

A side by side comparison of two radically different specimens of mutant(ish) female beauty (one luscious and blonde, one lithe and brunette) will yield concrete and empirical conclusions about aesthetics. Don’t question our methodology, it’s science.

Subjects

1. Jennifer Lawrence a.k.a.Raven Darkholme a.k.a Mystique
2. Rose Byrne a.k.a. Dr. Moira MacTaggert a.k.a. Oh … that’s it? Already losing, Byrne.

Data

Figure 1

Ladies, ladies, ladies, what is going on here? This is a case study in “hotness” not horticulture. We in the Scientific Community fear Miss Byrne here is taking her “English Rose” schtick a petal too far. Also, that’s not even a Rose in her hair. Go literal, or go home, my dear. Miss Lawrence, on the other hand, appears to have raided the Scientific Community’s closet of Brass Plum accessories from circa 1995. That makes her a time traveler. And possibly a witch. We would kindly ask, in the interest of science, that the specimens remove their preposterous head pieces (and also their clothes). No, seriously, it’s for Science.

Figure 2

Well this, the Scientific Community feels, is a significant improvement. We fear Miss Byrne may have brained herself on some cumbersome lab equipment just before striking her alluring pose, and we’re not at all certain what purpose that lace serves, but at least the flower is gone. Miss Lawrence, on the other hand, looks quite … thirsty? Will someone hydrate the specimen, please. Also, it appears as though young Jennifer tumbled into one of our highly technical vats of grease. We, the Scientific Community, will strive to be more careful with our equipment placement.

Figure 3

Ah, Miss Lawrence, this was a foolish move. An august institution such as The Scientific Community will not be swayed, no not even by one of our favorites actors, John Hawkes. Frankly, Miss Lawrence, we’re disappointed by your obvious pandering. You can’t just trot out a “Deadwood” cast member and expect us to lose our obj-HOLY CATS!

Figure 4

IT’S TIMOTHY OLYPHANT!!!!!!!!!!!! We, uhm, eh, please excuse the Scientific Community while we endeavor to compose ourselves.

Conclusion

Well, clearly, Miss Byrne wins, for highly clinical and Olyphantasic-er Scientific reasons that may be unclear to you, the layperson. In a side by side analysis, it is clear to anyone with a PhD that Miss Byrne’s hair is more, em-her skin is just, um-and her body is, well-not to mention those eyes which-OH FINE! We’re only human! Buck up, Miss Lawrence. You put forth a valiant effort. Stronger candidates than you have stared down the Olyphant and lost. So, hoist your dress up, dust yourself off, and start all over again.