Because she's not. Even through the absurdly blurry lenses they shot her with, she looked old and hard! I literally rolled my eyes when Superman gave up his superpowers for HER!? Yea right. Dude needed a new eyeglass prescription!
share[deleted]
I think she was attractive in the first film, though I wouldn’t go so far as to call her hot. Although I remember thinking to myself that she did look the part of a smoker.
I don’t think Margot looked as good in the second film as she had in the first.
Weren't the first two films shot concurrently?
shareYes, they were. Difference could be down to wardrobe. She looked much worse in Superman IV. Apparently she did her own hair and make-up for that film and her wardrobe was dowdy.
shareNo, much of SII was filmed about 2-3years later with Lester directing (new scenes and refilmed Donner scenes), but some scenes included were filmed at same time as first film , you can tell as Kidder, Reeve, Stamp etc look notably different (Reeve bigger, Kidder anorexic looking, Stamp more grey)
shareI do not think she was supposed to be hot. Attractive should be the proper word here.
shareFrankly the TC is wrong. He's probably never seen the nude pictures Margot Kidder did where she shows off her boobs and bush. Then again considering the TC is probably young he probably doesn't like women having bushes.
shareFunny you say that.
I was browsing the Youtube app on my TV last night. I came across Superman 1, watching a few scenes.
On the good side, one still thinks Christopher Reeve was the best Superman.
But Margot, I don't know, maybe she was good as the character Lois Lane. But looks wise, I felt as the OP does....
Old, tired, rough. Like someone that had a hard life, smoked and did plenty of partying.
And Reeve looks magnificent. Young. Healthy. In terrific physical condition. It's almost as if the two were living entirely different lifestyles. They don't match up.
Maybe that was the point, get some Yin and yang going.
Margot Kidder was smoking hot.
share