It depends. There was that show with Melissa McCarthy a few years back and her, um, portly TV husband. And now I see commercials for another series with that guy. Before that, I remember a slew of shows in which an overweight/ordinary looking guy was married to a super-hot wife, the one that comes to mind is King of Queens but there were others.
The Thing from The Fantastic 4 would disagree with you on that... He looks like he's made of orange rocks.
I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised when I watch British television. You actually see individuals who aren't considered conventionally attractive, people with deformities, etc. What a change from American television!
You’re right. But I do think there is more of a tendency to cast eye candy now than there was 40 years ago.
I think the real problem is that Hollywood makes everything and everyone look like they're steeped in money. I find very few Hollywood actors attractive, but they all look like they just spent $5000 getting their hair done, and another $5000 on their skin. This is a bit of a problem in, say, a movie like the Hunger Games. "Look, there's Katniss's friend Gale, the guy who spends his days hunting and trapping in the woods around their dusty, impoverished coal-mining district... wait, why does he look like he just came out of a Beverly Hills salon?" Actually, it's really interesting to compare 'the Hunger Games' to another (vastly superior) film with Jennifer Lawrence, the low-budget indie 'Winter's Bone,' where she plays a very similar character in similar circumstances. She is a phenomenal actress, but in the Hunger Games she's saddled with that airbrushed Hollywood sheen, to her detriment. In Winter's Bone, she appears raw and unvarnished, real and compelling... and her performance in that film is unforgettable. Basically, Hollywood tries to make films out of money. Van Gogh worked with paint; Michelangelo worked with stone; Hollywood works with money. And money is a terrible medium for art.
Whether you are attractive or not, the key is to be photogenic. Take an actor like Peter Falk of 'Columbo', not Hollywood-handsome by any means, but he looks great through a camera-lens. Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc. look great, very compelling & your eye follows them for some reason. With female actors it's basically the same rule. You can be on-set with an actor & think "WTF are they doing here?" Then you see the rushes & it all becomes clear: they LOOK GREAT on-camera. There are plenty of beautiful-people cast for just their looks, I get it, but if casting were to follow reality I think you would be even more disappointed? My 2 cents...
I'm glad you wrote this, because to me it can often come down to this very thing. It seems like the bigger the budget the easier it is to keep the lipstick on in a harrowing situation. What's more, as technology increases, the better our home cinemas, the more that you can easily spy this stuff without even wanting to look. It's not like I sit down and think, "Oh, let me count the many things wrong with this film." No! I want to be carried away in the experience. People have mentioned escapism, and yeah, that's me, too. I don't even try to figure out who-done-it in a mystery (unless it's that obvious), and I certainly want to see good acting. It's just that now all of the "acting" is in one technicolor blob that fills the whole screen. And that can be cool, too, only not for every meal.
But you just named 3 ****ing good actors! Yeah, but I get it. Really good points. I was thinking of John Ritter, also. But in the end, if you're discerning enough, you're eyes follow because of the acting. It's gonna be hard to make another Peter Falk. But it can be done given a long enough timeline.
There's lots of 'pretty' going on, no doubt, but it seems to me that being both talented & camera-friendly will always prevail.
if I want reality, I'll just look outside. As stated, movies can be considered escapism, which is what I want.
years ago, the young woman from Gilmore Girls made some minor movie about poor girl moves to NYC and finds job and sexy husband. I remember the reviewer panning it saying how she has no money yet every day she is wearing different $500 dresses, $300 shoes, etc etc. His summary was 'if you think that's pretty dumb, then you have an idea about the Hollywood brains behind this crap."
Only supermodels are employed in a lot of movies, now. The epitome of this is the show CSI Miami. Unfortunately, it works on most people. Personally, irritates me to no end. The best performances were never (ever!) done by gorgeous people, IMHO. Just give the job to the best qualified actor whose beauty won't detract from the story. Braindead movies for braindead people who only need explosions and models aren't anything I'm interested in.
he he...what about movies set in Middle Ages showing people with perfect white teeth? eg "According to Jim"
CSI: Miami has been off the air for 8 years, since it ended in April 2012. You're way behind what's currently going on in television now. What I see today is a much greater attempt to bend over backwards to cast roles in an racially fair and inclusive manner, and also a greater attempt to hire women directors (which was not done for many years). I noticed one scene in the final episode of Star Trek: Discovery the other day where they had four actors of color doing the heavy lifting in one scene, and I thought that was the first time I've ever seen that in a major series. They also went out of their way to get gay and non-binary people cast and playing characters who were gay and/or non-binary, which apparently is a first: ‘Star Trek’ Casts First Non-Binary and Trans Actors, a Milestone Moment in Sci-Fi Inclusivity I would say the cast of Star Trek is not what I'd call "traditionally attractive," let alone in the supermodel category. But they're believable and do well in the roles. We also watch Blacklist, and that's a show where the boss is a black man, the lead agent is a woman, and they have a Korean-American female agent and a middle-Eastern man as a computer expert -- they cover a lot of bases. If anything, I'd say casting straight white males is kind of becoming an endangered species thing. We're still slogging through the mess of Wonder Woman 1984, and except with the two main roles (Gal Gadot and Chris Pine), I wouldn't call anybody in the movie supermodel-esque.
You missed the point I was making; supermodels being hired for every role is wholly unrealistic and immediately makes me jump ship and watch something else. It's a dead giveaway that the script and acting are weak and that one's brain should be left at the door. Far too many shows/movies to waste my time with that nonsense. What are you talking about? I did NOT refer to or even insinuate race, gender, sexual orientation in any way whatsoever. I'm stating that I bemoan that SUPERMODELS are hired for every role on shows or movies.
Should we be stereotyping attractive actors and actresses by assuming their acting skills are weak? You just said it’s a dead giveaway that the acting is weak. Some of the best ever actors and actress were also attractive. It’s like assuming an attractive blonde female is dumb. Not really fair to say that. On the flip slide, inclusion should never be at the expense of talent, nor should it hit you over the head. True inclusion and equity isn’t noticed. It becomes a normal part of life, which is the point.
Well said. Imagine what was thought of an attractive actor like Paul Newman, or Robert Redford. Perhaps all actors regardless of their looks have the same hill to climb? Everybody in the movie-biz has to have talent or they don't last.
I also wrote "script". If a script is strong on its own merit, there should be no need to hire drop-dead gorgeous women and handsome men for every role of the project just for the sake of presenting a pretty face. Doing so reeks of desperation and is ultimately so utterly unrealistic that I'm immediately uninterested. Replace Christopher Lloyd in this wonderful role/performance with a hearthrob. Would that have made Back To The Future more or less compelling? I vote for less. Far less! Sylvester Stallone in Rocky with Robert Redford as the studio wanted and @Old Rusty brought up? Far less, no question! The list goes on endlessly. When stylized looking-like-a-million-bucks supermodels pepper the screen in most/all roles of a movie/TV show, it's ridiculous. Unrealistic casting is one of the fundamentals which should be avoided. A pretty face for a pretty face's sake is (almost?) always, in my experience and opinion, symbolic of how terrible the show/movie is. Not in my view. Perhaps an interesting topic for another thread but Dennis Franz in NYPD Blue, F. Murray Abraham in Amadeus, Russell Crowe in The Insider are but a few examples of what I consider outstanding acting (some will invariably disagree) and none of them are lookers or at least presented in that way (Crowe is fat in his role). VERY few if any exceptions to that. Perhaps Adriana Ugarte in Mirage. Sigourney Weaver in Aliens also did a phenomenal job, though again it can be argued that she wasn't presented as hot onscreen in that movie which IMHO helps with getting hooked into the world of that movie.
O'Connor and Stapleton looked like what they were supposed to be; a middle-aged working class couple from Queens. Newhart was paired with the lovely Suzanne Pleshette in his first series, and Mary Frann in his second. Punching above his weight in both, I guess, but Newhart was smart and funny, so not completely implausible. The premise of the thread is kind of odd, if you ask me. Would a guy who looked like Kevin Spacey be married to a woman as beautiful as Annette Bening (as in American Beauty, 1999) in real life? Maybe, maybe not.
