- Messages
- 4,941
.
After reflecting, I have to agree. I came up with "unemployed look" as part of a dialog in a film short. It makes sense in that particular dialog...but now that it has been bounced around here, I can see that "bum look" or "Panhandler look" is a better fit for a stand alone term. I appreciate the suggestion.
Just to clarify before the Politically Correct Police get their knickers in a bunch again....I am not in any way being insensitive or rude to those who are truly homeless or panhandles. This tread is not about them at all. This thread is about the popularity of having that look....by people who aren't down on their luck. In actuality, financial status has very little to do the desire of those seeking to have this look.
I think a lot people missed my point. Let's use a couple of fictional examples to help illustrate my meaning:
Toyota comes out with a "new" model car. It is the body style of a 1979 Corolla...but the paint is faded and there are rust holes in the fenders. Bald tires are extra. Yet the sticker price is twice or three times the cost of the usual 2008 Corolla.
House Beautiful's cover story is about home builders who are creating new mansions that look like crack, slum houses. They have roofs with missing shingles and dirt lawns. You have your choice of broken or boarded up windows. The deluxe models come with the above mentioned special Corolla for your lawn.
Hollywood elite are racing to be the first to have these stylish must haves.
You might think this is ludicrous...but it is no different that spending loads of money for jeans that look like they were discarded.
....and that my friends IS my point. Some things in life you just have to shake your head.
FStephenMasek said:I would not call it the unemployed look. It is really the "bum" look,......
After reflecting, I have to agree. I came up with "unemployed look" as part of a dialog in a film short. It makes sense in that particular dialog...but now that it has been bounced around here, I can see that "bum look" or "Panhandler look" is a better fit for a stand alone term. I appreciate the suggestion.
Just to clarify before the Politically Correct Police get their knickers in a bunch again....I am not in any way being insensitive or rude to those who are truly homeless or panhandles. This tread is not about them at all. This thread is about the popularity of having that look....by people who aren't down on their luck. In actuality, financial status has very little to do the desire of those seeking to have this look.
I think a lot people missed my point. Let's use a couple of fictional examples to help illustrate my meaning:
Toyota comes out with a "new" model car. It is the body style of a 1979 Corolla...but the paint is faded and there are rust holes in the fenders. Bald tires are extra. Yet the sticker price is twice or three times the cost of the usual 2008 Corolla.
House Beautiful's cover story is about home builders who are creating new mansions that look like crack, slum houses. They have roofs with missing shingles and dirt lawns. You have your choice of broken or boarded up windows. The deluxe models come with the above mentioned special Corolla for your lawn.
Hollywood elite are racing to be the first to have these stylish must haves.
You might think this is ludicrous...but it is no different that spending loads of money for jeans that look like they were discarded.
....and that my friends IS my point. Some things in life you just have to shake your head.