I read once that one way TV represented the nerdy character (and interacted with marketing) was to dress them in styles from 6 MONTHS AGO! 
And the Beautiful beautiful Val Kilmer has so much character (In this role and in his acting choices in his career) to me he isn’t really one of the “Beautiful people”…there’s a lot of actors who have made great choices or have aged out of being blindingly beautiful…like Brad Pitt.
Stephen King had a problem with Arnold Schwarzenegger being cast as Ben Richards in The Running Man. “Stephen King took issue with an adaptation of his work into film?” I can hear you asking yourself with incredulity, but I can assure you it’s true. Ben Richards was supposed to be a regular guy, maybe little more clever than most, but just a regular dude. No reasonable person can describe Arnold as just a regular dude, even if the movie’s plot adhered closer to the book, Arnie in that role would have changed the dynamic.
I had to look up the title of the movie, but I remember ads for The Truth About Cats and Dogs where Janeane Garofalo is supposed to play the less attractive friend of Uma Thurman. At the time it seemed odd to me as I’d pick Garofalo every day of the week, but maybe some of that is just down to a matter of preference as both of them are attractive.
I am sure there are many exceptions, but there seems to be many groups of people who are rarely portrayed as good or likeable characters. The ones that come to mind are religious people, smokers, and Southerners.
I note the padre in Les Mis as a favorable religious person and many of the nice Southerners in Where the Crawdads Sing.
I think it’s a tricky one to draw the line between discrimination and performance.
Famous actors are not just very good looking, but they often have a more distinctive appearance than the typical guy off the street (or the typical B-list actor). Having easily-recognizable faces that can emote well, without any odd (i.e. “ugly”) features, does seem to affect our enjoyment of the film / show.
It is interesting from a psychological POV though.
Why does the hero need to be better-looking even than characters who in-universe are supposed to be the best-looking, vain character?
Why do looks have to tie into personality such that e.g. a kooky character needs to have somewhat kooky features?
I thought he was fine in Extraction. Badass merc with a good heart and a tortured past isn’t the most original character, but he pulled it off really well.
I have to agree with this. When the “ugly” women is almost exactly the same as the attractive woman, except she a brunette instead of a blonde, wears glasses, and has no sense of style-- and usually has some job that requires an advanced degree. I really want to beat the stage with my walking stick.
Something I really liked about The Big Bang Theory. They not only cast not especially hot, but talented, Mayim Bialik, but they actually frumped her up from regular Mayim Bialik. Sheldon really loved her for herself. For all his faults, he loved Amy for herself.
I always thought Matthew Rhys was miscast in The Americans as a guy whose looks and affect guaranteed him he’d be able to seduce any woman between the ages of 15 and 55 within a few minutes of meeting. To me, he looks kinda puny and nerdish, and the part needed to be played by a more traditional studly dude to be fully plausible. Great actor, though.
Yeah, when people (okay, one person) on this board gripe about Emily Blunt’s forehead vein, there’s really something amiss. I like shows with people who look like real people, which includes attractive and unattractive, unless there’s a reason why the character is supposed to be extraordinarily gorgeous. It’s just not believable for the scientist or the cop to always look like a supermodel.
I don’t think him being irresistibly sexy was a part of his character. Sure, he seduced some people, but absolutely wasn’t supposed to be a James bond sex machine.
I think it’s actually an example of the underlying problem if Amy’s supposed to be an example of somebody who’s physically unattractive.
Yeah - I thought the whole point was that he picked people he could manipulate, rather than being able to manipulate anyone.
Did he ever fail? Maybe once or twice, tops (and I don’t remember failures offhand). He would be given the name, and only the name, of some woman, nod his head, and say, “OK, I’ll get her in bed and have her trusting me by Thursday afternoon, maybe Wednesday night if everything breaks just right, and then we can begin to…” It was positively wacky. I’m watching and thinking, “Hmm, got to watch this dude closely–he’s got some secret techniques that apparently work better than I ever dreamed.”
But as I just said, he often didn’t pick the women at all. He was assigned to them and given the sketchiest of information about them, apart from the fact they were female.
I don’t mind, but where are the hijack police? As I’ve often said, hijacks seem to get called somewhat inconsistently.
So…when I heard Yaphet Kotto had been cast in The Running Man, I thought he had been cast as Killian (The Richard Dawson character). He matches the book description perfectly. But then we se that he’s playing another guy…but that casting is so perfect, I have to wonder if he had initially been cast as Killian.
But given the direction they went, Dawson is very good. I just want to see book faithful adaptation of The Running Man. And do The Long Walk while you’re at it.
In the CIA there’s an entire career path called “targeter” where people about targets and the best ways to recruit them. The KGB would send him after targets with a high chance of success.
Maybe that’s what I need to have better luck with women.
Back to the OP a bit more: in college, I took a contemporary drama course from a professor who had been an Off-Broadway actor (I went to college in Manhattan–he did both simultaneously for a while) and he offered an option to play a scene rather than write a paper for his course–afterwards, he asked if I was interested in pursuing an acting career. (I knew I’d kicked ass in my scene–I played Stanley in Pinter’s Birthday Party, and I really got into it, scared the audience into wondering if I was acting or if I was having a nervous breakdown on stage. Maybe a little scenery got chewed but I was pretty impressive for my first time on stage.) I loved acting, but I told him I didn’t know if I was good-looking enough to have a career as an actor. He looked at me thoughtfully and said, “Maybe not.”
The funny thing, to me now, is that at the time I was slender, six feet tall, and conventionally handsome–that is, I had regular features, a nice head of hair, clear skin, and so on. But I thought I didn’t make the cut, and he knew exactly what I was concerned about.
The road not taken.
I’m reminded of the story of the old master who tells a would-be fencing champ “you lack the fire.” Decades later, the dropout learns that the old guy says that to everyone, to, y’know, see how they’ll react…