Wow, had no idea it was a remake. Thanks for the link.
It’s a sadly cultural thing, and one that I’ve always bemoaned. I generally sum it up to others as the fairytale image:
The beautiful princess.
The ugly giant.
The ugly stepsisters.
Which of these are good? Which are bad? We know nothing more about them than their appearances, and yet, the implied morality is pretty obvious. (And yes, you don’t need to remind me, this isn’t true in many modern stories, but in things like Shrek, it’s sort-of the point.) Even in the tale of the Frog Prince, or Beauty and the Beast, the ‘transformation’ always ends up with the object-of-desire becomming handsome.
We’re trained from an early age: Beautiful = good. Ugly = bad.
(And for us ‘ugly’ types, it doesn’t help the self-image any.)
IIRC, originally they were going to go for having the girl end up with the sweet dweeb, but backed off in the face of the test audiences’ preference for the contrary. Part of the problem with the “it doesn’t matter you learned your lesson, stud; sweet dweeb here was right for me all along” scenario is that it’s not the girl’s fantasy; and if you want to sell tickets you gotta play to your target demographic.
Although <i>She’s All That</i> indulged in its fair share of cliches, it at least livened up the “former ugly duckling unveils her new beauty” scene by having her tumble down the staircase.
Maybe he learned not to be such a sniveling doormat?
It’s hard to buy into your righteous indignation that losers shouldn’t be portrayed as losers. Loser is as loser does.
Man, calm down.
“She’s All That” also had one of the dance scenes I tend to like in FPJ movies, along with the hillarious line: “Hey, on behalf of all black people: Shut up!”
Then there is “10 Things I Hate About You” where the good looking protaganist was basically trying to get the ugly duckling guy (played by the TOTALLY homely Heath Ledger) to hook up with the ugly duckling girl (played by the horrifically ugly Julia Styles) so that he can hook up with the pretty popular sister. Of course, the antagonist is a good looking guy who is a total jerk. Even the counter-cultural second-string friend of the ugly duckling girl was something of a hottie (especially in that Shakespearian Renfest dress. Rawr). 
Not Another Teen Movie has a great bit on this, where the high school guys are scouring the campus, looking for a girl to makeover. After passing over some obvious contenders (e.g. the albino folk singer), they settle on…
“No, not Janey Briggs. She’s got glasses. And a ponytail. Ugh, she’s got paint on her overalls. What is that?”
That’s why I like movies like Ghost World and Napoleon Dynamite. Why should the protagonist always have to change? What about the people around him/her? (I know, Syd Field is rolling in his, er, mansion)
That’s what drove me crazy about Ghost World. For those that don’t quiote remember:
Thora Birch is some plain jane outsider who spends the whole movie wallowing in the fact that she will never be noticed by the “popular/beautiful” people.
Her second banana best friend is of course played by Scarlett Johannsen, that venerable character actress who is never known for playing beautiful people. 
While it was well acted and great, in real life these two wouldn’t be ignored by the world at large by the “popular/beautiful” crowd because the “popular/beautiful” would worship them as gods.
I believe that was the whole point of Lost in Translation wasn’t it?
Indeed. If only someone had mentioned that movie sooner.
Heck, I hated the ending of Shrek with its “stick to your own kind” message.
There was an episode of Cheers with a slight spin. A tall, moderately ungainly woman who lives in Cliff’s apartment building prettifies herself and looks like a serious fox. When Cliff realizes she’s now out of his league, he hints she should go back to the way she was and she flatly refuses. Unfortunately, she never appeared again. Doubly so, since she liked Jeopardy! and not its D-student sibling Wheel of Fortune.
So did I, but I figured it was because the filmmakers didn’t want to get into any squidgy bestiality-like issues.
That was the premise of The Baxter. The nice guy gets left at the altar when the handsome asshole hero runs into the church and declares that he loves the bride and then the whole movie is about the nice guy and what happens to him. It was a nice movie.
Sandra Bullock is like the queen of playing the ugly but not duckling.
Birch’s character was dead on (though her type would usually have a few gay goth friends). Johansson may seem like a stretch, but she was pretty realistic, too, IMO, and her character was hit on more (since she wore “normal” clothing), she just rejected them all.
Go find your high school year book and flip through your year. How many of the “beautiful girls” were just fond of perms, tight clothing, dollar store make-up and making out? How many of the “ugly” girls were just quiet and smart? High school “popular/beautiful” crowds are hardly great judges of anything- beauty, character, etc.
Where the hell did you read loser into the original post? Sounds like you have a major reading comprehension problem.
I don’t think the unpopularity of these characters had anything to do with their looks. Neither were meant to be ugly ducklings.
That’s not lost on me. But lacking confidence and social skills doesn’t inherently make someone a bad person. Certainly, in the world of fairy tales and movies, an awkward guy with genuine love and kindness has the moral high ground over some asshole who suddenly discovers he should look for inner beauty… by an ugly girl transforming into having outer beauty.
“Loser” wasn’t in the OP, it is the answer to the OP.
They don’t get the girl because they are losers.
Yeah, I disagree. The “awkward guy with genuine love” more times than not doesn’t know what love is. I’d call it infatuation, approaching being a stalker. Genuine love is a two way street that only grows from a two-way relationship. Nobody begins a relationship in “genuine love”, and anybody who thinks they are genuinely in love with somebody with whom they’ve never shared a romantic moment is delusional.
Now the asshole, he’s got potential. He doesn’t harbor delusions of grandeur about his genuine love for random women. He already has self confidence, and if we’re using “asshole” as a synonym for “popular”, he’s also already socialized.
The genuine love guy has no concept of relationships, love, social interaction, etc… So IMO, the “asshole” is far closer to being romantic partner material than the genuine love guy will ever be. The asshole only has the one flaw, and as soon as he overcomes it, he’s the obvious choice.
Honestly, when I think of the generic “genuine love” guy in these movies, I always think they are a half step away from the Brendan Frasier “sensitive guy” on the beach in Bedazzled. It is no wonder the girl goes with the asshole kicking sand in his face.
I don’t know about that. There are circumstances where it’s possible to fall in love gradually where romantic moments are avoided for practical reasons.
Of course the usual thing is to start having romantic moments as soon as you know you kind of like someone, but it is possible to get to know someone enough to really love them before it occurs to you to jump each others’ bones.