Can we have someone like Jennifer Aniston here? - Page 6

Originally posted by: Tippy-top

The western thought is different. They find women in their 40 s the most attractive, while here at our place it's damsel's in their twenties who seem attractive to the society.

I'd say it's a very human thought that women older than 30, 40, 50, 60 etc. can be attractive. I'd even venture to say many people in India dare have human thoughts like this. The rest is social engineering.

I completely agree.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Not to take anything away from Jennifer Aniston and her incredible charisma and hard work BUT

She was lucky to be cast in one of the greatest sitcoms of all times that ran for ten whole seasons.

She was lucky to have writers and producers who wrote a show with an ensemble cast where all characters were given equal importance, character graphs, and plot lines.

She was lucky to have showrunners who defended the female characters and their openness to sex. Lookup how NBC showrunners felt about Monica sleeping with Paul the wine guy on the first date.

She was lucky to have an audience who embraced the female characters without slut-shaming them.

She was lucky to be part of an ensemble cast that considered each other equally important in the show and made the decision to collectively bargain for their salaries.

Contrast that to India where television tends to be saas-bahu drama focused. When it comes to media in general ensemble casts are not equitably utilized. Very few shows or movies give women good character graphs or plots. Audiences are not willing to embrace women who are open about their sexuality.

Can you imagine how India would react to an Indian woman who runs away from her wedding, has a sexual fling with a foreigner, sleeps with her ex-fiance when he's engaged to her best friend, breaks up with a man for cheating (they were on a break) but continues to sabotage his future relationships from convincing his girlfriend to go bald, to flying across the ocean to breakup his marriage, seduces her junior at work, has a child with her ex out of wedlock but expects him to give up his dating life to support her through pregnancy, and gets engaged (mistakenly) to his best friend immediately after the child was born, later actually has a relationship with the best friend despite being fully aware of the baggage and awkwardness.....

Jennifer Aniston became a big star because her character was layered and complex. Yes, she does a lot of mean and shitty things throughout the show, but she is also sweet, endearing, caring, and has a wonderful arc going from daddy's spoilt little girl to an independent working woman. She's totally human. Sometimes she messes up. Sometimes she sets things right. Rachel Green was so well written and developed that she became a breakout character.

Indian audiences tend to have a dichotomous view of women. She is either virginal or promiscuous. Either a spoiled brat or hardworking. Either a mean girl or miss congeniality. Either loyal or fickle. They embrace Rachel Green because she's a white New Yorker, they would not accept an Indian girl who goes through the same life graph.

Finally, Indian actors are too fickle and competitive to collaborate as an ensemble cast. It wan't about the men and women being equal either. The cast totally supported Matthew Perry through his drug problems, health issues, and rapid weight changes due to it. I simply don't see that level of collaboration to uplift each other and ensure everyone succeeds.

So India will not have a Jennifer Aniston because we do not have the environment for people like her to thrive and succeed.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Not to take anything away from Jennifer Aniston and her incredible charisma and hard work BUT

She was lucky to be cast in one of the greatest sitcoms of all times that ran for ten whole seasons.

She was lucky to have writers and producers who wrote a show with an ensemble cast where all characters were given equal importance, character graphs, and plot lines.

She was lucky to have showrunners who defended the female characters and their openness to sex. Lookup how NBC showrunners felt about Monica sleeping with Paul the wine guy on the first date.

She was lucky to have an audience who embraced the female characters without slut-shaming them.

She was lucky to be part of an ensemble cast that considered each other equally important in the show and made the decision to collectively bargain for their salaries.

Contrast that to India where television tends to be saas-bahu drama focused. When it comes to media in general ensemble casts are not equitably utilized. Very few shows or movies give women good character graphs or plots. Audiences are not willing to embrace women who are open about their sexuality.

Can you imagine how India would react to an Indian woman who runs away from her wedding, has a sexual fling with a foreigner, sleeps with her ex-fiance when he's engaged to her best friend, breaks up with a man for cheating (they were on a break) but continues to sabotage his future relationships from convincing his girlfriend to go bald, to flying across the ocean to breakup his marriage, seduces her junior at work, has a child with her ex out of wedlock but expects him to give up his dating life to support her through pregnancy, and gets engaged (mistakenly) to his best friend immediately after the child was born, later actually has a relationship with the best friend despite being fully aware of the baggage and awkwardness.....

Jennifer Aniston became a big star because her character was layered and complex. Yes, she does a lot of mean and shitty things throughout the show, but she is also sweet, endearing, caring, and has a wonderful arc going from daddy's spoilt little girl to an independent working woman. She's totally human. Sometimes she messes up. Sometimes she sets things right. Rachel Green was so well written and developed that she became a breakout character.

Indian audiences tend to have a dichotomous view of women. She is either virginal or promiscuous. Either a spoiled brat or hardworking. Either a mean girl or miss congeniality. Either loyal or fickle. They embrace Rachel Green because she's a white New Yorker, they would not accept an Indian girl who goes through the same life graph.

Finally, Indian actors are too fickle and competitive to collaborate as an ensemble cast. It wan't about the men and women being equal either. The cast totally supported Matthew Perry through his drug problems, health issues, and rapid weight changes due to it. I simply don't see that level of collaboration to uplift each other and ensure everyone succeeds.

So India will not have a Jennifer Aniston because we do not have the environment for people like her to thrive and succeed.

Love the way you described Rachel. 😍

Bollywood and Hollywood are totally different. Movies in Bollywood are more focused into dance, songs and glamorous where in Hollywood, movies are more focused into acting and talent. People in United States usually think that Bollywood movies are only about songs and dance. I remember somebody was saying dance and songs when I asked him about Bollywood movies and he usually watches Bollywood movies. As women age, they lose their glamorous. There are only few actresses like Konkona, Vidya Balan, Rani and Radhika that are known for acting chops and only few actresses like Rani and Vidya can carry a movie on their own shoulder. Sridevi was also able to carry movies on her own shoulders without top heroes. Most other actresses are known for their beauty, glamorous or dancing. At young age, they focus too much on those aspects than acting. Also, most actresses need top actors to make a film hit. So Hollywood’s way is totally different from Bollywood. Jennifer is lucky to be in a county like United States. The age doesn’t matter much in the United States. Not just in Hollywood but on all other aspects too like marriage, education, jobs and other factors. In South Asia, most people are done with their education when they are around 25. In the United States, some people study till they are 80. There was a 67 year old man that graduated from the university that I graduated on the same year when I graduated. In South Asia, people’s thinking is totally different from United States. The audiences are very different. When actresses turn 30, people started to call them buddhi or aunty but they call actors handsome even when the actors are 50. Actresses will get more respect if audiences change their mind.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Not to take anything away from Jennifer Aniston and her incredible charisma and hard work BUT

She was lucky to be cast in one of the greatest sitcoms of all times that ran for ten whole seasons.

She was lucky to have writers and producers who wrote a show with an ensemble cast where all characters were given equal importance, character graphs, and plot lines.

She was lucky to have showrunners who defended the female characters and their openness to sex. Lookup how NBC showrunners felt about Monica sleeping with Paul the wine guy on the first date.

She was lucky to have an audience who embraced the female characters without slut-shaming them.

She was lucky to be part of an ensemble cast that considered each other equally important in the show and made the decision to collectively bargain for their salaries.

Contrast that to India where television tends to be saas-bahu drama focused. When it comes to media in general ensemble casts are not equitably utilized. Very few shows or movies give women good character graphs or plots. Audiences are not willing to embrace women who are open about their sexuality.

Can you imagine how India would react to an Indian woman who runs away from her wedding, has a sexual fling with a foreigner, sleeps with her ex-fiance when he's engaged to her best friend, breaks up with a man for cheating (they were on a break) but continues to sabotage his future relationships from convincing his girlfriend to go bald, to flying across the ocean to breakup his marriage, seduces her junior at work, has a child with her ex out of wedlock but expects him to give up his dating life to support her through pregnancy, and gets engaged (mistakenly) to his best friend immediately after the child was born, later actually has a relationship with the best friend despite being fully aware of the baggage and awkwardness.....

Jennifer Aniston became a big star because her character was layered and complex. Yes, she does a lot of mean and shitty things throughout the show, but she is also sweet, endearing, caring, and has a wonderful arc going from daddy's spoilt little girl to an independent working woman. She's totally human. Sometimes she messes up. Sometimes she sets things right. Rachel Green was so well written and developed that she became a breakout character.

Indian audiences tend to have a dichotomous view of women. She is either virginal or promiscuous. Either a spoiled brat or hardworking. Either a mean girl or miss congeniality. Either loyal or fickle. They embrace Rachel Green because she's a white New Yorker, they would not accept an Indian girl who goes through the same life graph.

Finally, Indian actors are too fickle and competitive to collaborate as an ensemble cast. It wan't about the men and women being equal either. The cast totally supported Matthew Perry through his drug problems, health issues, and rapid weight changes due to it. I simply don't see that level of collaboration to uplift each other and ensure everyone succeeds.

So India will not have a Jennifer Aniston because we do not have the environment for people like her to thrive and succeed.

Oh My God..*Janice style* lol

in all seriousness..you wrote so so so well...

i actually agree with you there..