Quote Originally Posted by leo9
As for the computerised "beautiful face", she looks as dull as white sliced bread. A good design for a display dummy or a sex doll, but as a person, I wouldn't give her a second glance; she's got no character. I'm reminded of an experiment in pre-computer days where they tried to create the "perfect face" by photographically merging a dozen film stars, and came up with someone totally average.
I think the reason this 'beautiful face' looks average is that they forgot the frame and gave her ugly short hair. Some years ago now TIME Magazine did a feature story on what man would look like 50 or 100 years from now. They had hundreds of readers write in to ask who the beautiful model was they used for the cover. Answer: She was a computer generation with features in proportion to how they're found among humans at large (eg. close to 25% Oriental, 20% Indian, x%Caucasian, y%Negroid, z% Semitic and so forth). If I recall correctly, that was a full-body shot, and even I found her attractive, but I think they gave her short hair, too.