Movies/TV Shows with hot guys ending up with ugly girls?

krudler · 08-06-2011 12:54AM

iguana wrote: »

Davies was definitely the best looking of the four, though Cattrall was also very attractive in the 80s.

.

babe

:pac:

really though she was pretty hot back in the day, and shes in Big Trouble In Little China so that automatically gets her into the book of awesome

Permabear · 08-06-2011 09:07AM

This post has been deleted.

LittleBook · 08-06-2011 09:25AM

thisisinteresting wrote: »

I always thought it was because its mostly men writing, directing, and producing those movies.

There's nothing new about men being mostly responsible for what's on TV and in films. But, up until fairly recently, nearly EVERY main character was good-looking.

I think what's different nowadays is simply that (while the "production line" method still clearly exists) you get a lot more independent films and TV shows which are written/produced by the actors who appear in them and who cast themselves and/or their friends. And they aren't afraid to step outside the mainstream tradition and use normal looking people.

liah wrote: »

So there's an incredibly wide variety of films/shows where the hot chick ends up with the less-than-conventionally-attractive bloke (e.g. every Seth Rogen film to date). But what about the reverse? I can think of loads of the first scenario off the top of my head but when I try to think of a film/show where a hot dude ends up with a less-than-attractive chick I'm left completely blank.

Some other examples of films (not sure if they're mentioned yet) would be:

Muriel's Wedding - not only does dowdy Muriel score the hot guy, she also walks away after.

Dogfight - a bunch of soldiers hunt down the ugliest girls they can find in a competition to see who can bag the ugliest one. The ending is a little ambiguous but the "hero" seems to realise that there's more to his "date" than ugly.

Hairspray - overweight, optimistic teenager wins the heart of Zac Efron

sunflower27 · 08-06-2011 06:43PM

Baby Cakes - starred Ricky Lake who falls for a hot guy she sees on the train and sets out to seduce him even though he is engaged. She gets him in the end.

liah · 08-06-2011 07:09PM

Glad to see there's a lot more movies than I thought like that! So it's not as unbalanced as I'd imagined. Looks like I just amn't watching the right sort of films

Catari Jaguar · 09-06-2011 12:42PM

Not understanding the Clare Danes hate. It was the 90s, grunge was in, she was the epitome of the grunge girl. Perfect Juliet for an off beat, artsy version of the film. She's beautiful too, and she get's Jordan Catalano....

Malari · 09-06-2011 12:48PM

cherub rock wrote: »

Not understanding the Clare Danes hate. It was the 90s, grunge was in, she was the epitome of the grunge girl. Perfect Juliet for an off beat, artsy version of the film. She's beautiful too, and she get's Jordan Catalano....

Me either. I thought she was beautiful in that movie and beautiful in stardust.

Logical Fallacy · 09-06-2011 01:06PM

seenitall wrote: »

I remember the first time I was surprised by Hollywood was back in 1996 when they cast Claire Danes opposite Di Caprio in "Romeo + Juliet". Claire Danes! If there is one role that is meant to be played by a seriously flawless and at the same time almost child-like beauty, it has to be Juliet (as demonstrated by Zefirelli's casting of Olivia Hussey in the 60's).

In fairness, back when it was written she would have been played by a dude.

iguana · 09-06-2011 01:07PM

cherub rock wrote: »

Not understanding the Clare Danes hate. It was the 90s, grunge was in, she was the epitome of the grunge girl. Perfect Juliet for an off beat, artsy version of the film. She's beautiful too, and she get's Jordan Catalano....

She was a very pretty girl. All fresh faced innocence with a depth beneath it. My So Called Life was like, y'know way like overrated though like.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 09-06-2011 01:27PM

Bridget Jones the only one I can think of. I know Zellwegger is attractive in real life but she purposely put on weight to fit the character in those films. Mark and Daniel are definitely out of her league lookswise in that film.

In the Seth Rogan films whilst they are average-looking guys getting the hot girl, they are also usually portrayed as cool, funny and sweet guys, so its more believable. Kind of similar to Bridget Jones in that the Mark character loves her for who she is and not because she takes off her glasses and lets down her hair to reveal she's actually really hot.

Sunshineboo · 09-06-2011 01:38PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Bridget Jones the only one I can think of. I know Zellwegger is attractive in real life but she purposely put on weight to fit the character in those films. Mark and Daniel are definitely out of her league lookswise in that film.

In the Seth Rogan films whilst they are average-looking guys getting the hot girl, they are also usually portrayed as cool, funny and sweet guys, so its more believable. Kind of similar to Bridget Jones in that the Mark character loves her for who she is and not because she takes off her glasses and lets down her hair to reveal she's actually really hot.

Disagree somewhat, Bridget is very attractive in the film even with the bit of weight, she was at most a size 12? I think Renee actually said she got a lot more male attention when she put on the weight for the film.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 09-06-2011 01:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I sort of picked up on that but in a different way. I thought the film was actually pointing out the arguably revolting concept that society values looks far more than personality or inner beauty, and using the visual trick to highlight it. In other parts it mocked the way society is much nicer to pretty people.

Particularly because the two main male characters are portrayed as being pretty despicable, if amusing characters. However at the end of the film

when Black sees how much he genuinely loves the girl he doesn't care that she's unattractive, so he doesn't want to leave her, therefore being consistant with the inner beauty>than outer beauty theme of the film

Bottle_of_Smoke · 09-06-2011 01:44PM

Sunshineboo wrote: »

Disagree somewhat, Bridget is very attractive in the film even with the bit of weight, she was at most a size 12? I think Renee actually said she got a lot more male attention when she put on the weight for the film.

Would you not think though that Hugh Grant/Colin Firth were out of her league in that film though?

I could be wrong as I haven't read the books but I got the impression Bridget was meant to be a normal person character. Attractive but not stunning like.

Sunshineboo · 09-06-2011 01:54PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would you not think though that Hugh Grant/Colin Firth were out of her league in that film though?

I could be wrong as I haven't read the books but I got the impression Bridget was meant to be a normal person character. Attractive but not stunning like.

No I dont think so, Colin Firth more so perhaps? They are all attractive in different ways, I think what was so refreshing about Bridget was that she was flawed, she didn't have a perfect figure and had bad habits but still a very attractive woman and definitely in their league.

parker kent · 09-06-2011 02:37PM

cherub rock wrote: »

Not understanding the Clare Danes hate. It was the 90s, grunge was in, she was the epitome of the grunge girl. Perfect Juliet for an off beat, artsy version of the film. She's beautiful too, and she get's Jordan Catalano....

I don't see much Claire Danes hate. I was just talking about the age of various Juliets. Claire Danes is beautiful.

seenitall · 09-06-2011 04:30PM

I don't "hate" Claire Danes, but I certainly don't see her as beautiful, not by a long shot.

Beautiful for me is: women like Theron, Berry, Portman, CZJ in her prime (cheekbones correctly positioned

, and proportional facial symmetry even more, maketh the beauty). I would see them as in a different league to women like Danes, Dunst, Stiles and many, many others, who may be pretty but nothing above and beyond that.

As they say: do I have an extraordinarily singular taste in women's beauty, or am I not that far away from society's view on it - YOU decide! :cool:

BTW, good point about Juliet actually having been played by boys in times of yore; so perhaps it is about my expectations more than anything else. Now that I think back on the film, Danes did suit its grungy and loud (in all its meanings) iconography to a T, so that's a good point too. I thought the film too hammed-up, loud, frantic, and devoid of any emotional depth. The victory of "style" over substance. And I was only 22! :pac: Goodness knows what I'd make of it now...

Malari · 09-06-2011 04:40PM

seenitall wrote: »

I don't "hate" Claire Danes, but I certainly don't see her as a great beauty, not by a loooong shot!

Beautiful for me is: women like Theron, Berry, Portman, CZJ in her prime (cheekbones correctly positioned , and proportional facial symmetry even more, maketh the beauty). I would see them as in a different league to women like Danes, Dunst, Stiles and many, many others, who may be pretty but nothing above and beyond that.

As they say: do I have an extraordinarily singular taste in women's beauty, or am I not that far away from society's view on it - YOU decide! :cool:

BTW, good point about Juliet actually having been played by boys in times of yore; so perhaps it is about my expectations more than anything else. Now that I think back on the film, Danes did suit its grungy and loud (in all its meanings) iconography to a T, so that's a good point too. I thought the film too hammed-up, loud, frantic, and devoid of any emotional depth. The victory of "style" over substance. And I was only 22! :pac: Goodness knows what I'd make of it now...

That must be a subjective thing. The women you feel are beautiful seem to have more rounded faces and are actually quite similar in facial features. I think Danes and Dunst are equally beautiful, maybe more angular faces, but certainly not in a different class to the others you mention.

liah · 09-06-2011 04:44PM

I actually think the Luhrmann Romeo + Juliet is a fantastic little film. Hated it the first time I saw it because I thought it was just too over-the-top, but I didn't know what made films 'good' then. Watched it again recently and realized how cleverly and effectively it really was done. Really, really underrated film imo.

And I love Claire Danes.

seenitall · 09-06-2011 04:57PM

Malari wrote: »

That must be a subjective thing. The women you feel are beautiful seem to have more rounded faces and are actually quite similar in facial features. I think Danes and Dunst are equally beautiful, maybe more angular faces, but certainly not in a different class to the others you mention.

Hmmm... Danes' nose is a tad too big/wrong shape for her face, for example. Facially, I can't see anything extraordinary there, that would make me go "WOW, beautiful!". But she's a pretty woman for sure, and in fact (if you must know :P), I like to think I resemble her somewhat (only I'm a brunette!).

Dunst - cute not beautiful. Etc.

Could be a subjective thing, yes. But I'm not entirely convinced yet!

@ liah: that film is about as far as you can get from describing it as "little". Everything about it was flashy, OTT and meant to impress the MTV generation, from crazy camera spinning and dizzyness-inducing cuts to the tacky, in-your face aesthetic of costimography and sets and the blaring, amp-it-up music. I just think the spirit of the play got completely thrown by the wayside, to the point where you can hardly take in the language for all the distraction going on, and the language/dialogue does need a bit of taking in, as all the plays written in a very different era do. Not good cinema, merely a good cinematic "experience", perhaps (but not even that, imo).

Malari · 09-06-2011 05:18PM

seenitall wrote: »

Hmmm... Danes' nose is a tad too big/wrong shape for her face, for example. Facially, I can't see anything extraordinary there, that would make me go "WOW, beautiful!". But she's a pretty woman for sure, and in fact (if you must know :P), I like to think I resemble her somewhat (only I'm a brunette!).

Dunst - cute not beautiful. Etc.

Could be a subjective thing, yes. But I'm not entirely convinced yet!

Aha! So it's a self-esteem issue

liah · 09-06-2011 05:19PM

seenitall wrote: »

@ liah: that film is about as far as you can get from describing it as "little". Everything about it was flashy, OTT and meant to impress the MTV generation, from crazy camera spinning and dizzyness-inducing cuts to the tacky, in-your face aesthetic of costimography and sets and the blaring, amp-it-up music. I just think the spirit of the play got completely thrown by the wayside, to the point where you can hardly take in the language, which does need a bit taking in, as all the plays writen in a different era do. Not good cinema, merely a good cinematic "experience", perhaps (but not even that, imo).

See, I think you'd need to watch it again. I thought the same thing when I was young, but I feel very differently now.

Yes, it's visual, and yes, it's loud, but actually think about it as a film rather than something pop culture. The idea of bringing Shakespeare into the modern age while leaving the actual speech in tact is novel, it's something that could have gone horrifically wrong but they managed to pull it off in a way that wasn't distracting or confusing or that took away from the story. Yes, it's stylized - but what's wrong with stylized? It's done well - the film is consistent, it's funny, it's dramatic, it's beautiful to look at and very visually interesting.

And I would disagree that the spirit of the play got thrown to the wayside, I'd disagree with that completely. What did you want? A regular period drama where everyone speaks in prim, Oxford English accents and prances around in those strange puffy pants? Please. We've seen that a million times.

Give it some credit. It was a bold move, it's something that hadn't been done effectively before. I thought it was interesting, new and creative - much better than the old, boring period pieces of crap that get churned out. It was nice to see a film that makes the story accessible and interesting to the new generation, I like how it managed to breathe new life into very old material.

I'm not claiming it to be the best film in the world, I just think you're being far, far too harsh on it and are focusing too much on this idea you've concocted of it being some MTV generation flick. There's a lot of nuance to the film, particularly if you take it out of the context of the story and examine it from a technical perspective.

seenitall · 09-06-2011 05:36PM

liah wrote: »

What did you want? A regular period drama where everyone speaks in prim, Oxford English accents and prances around in those strange puffy pants?

LOL

I did see the film a second time a few years later, and it didn't improve for me with time. But perhaps it's also about Luhrmann, I have a very similar view of "Moulin Rouge", and after that I never bothered with him again. I just think EMPTY.

Agree to disagree?

liah · 09-06-2011 05:41PM

seenitall wrote: »

LOL

I did see the film a second time a few years later, and it didn't improve for me with time. But perhaps it's also about Luhrmann, I have a very similar view of "Moulin Rouge", and after that I never bothered with him again. I just think EMPTY.

Agree to disagree?

Gunna have to

Though I'm not a big fan of Moulin Rouge. Just think Romeo and Juliet was a cool concept.

metrovelvet · 10-06-2011 12:31AM

liah wrote: »

See, I think you'd need to watch it again. I thought the same thing when I was young, but I feel very differently now.

Yes, it's visual, and yes, it's loud, but actually think about it as a film rather than something pop culture. The idea of bringing Shakespeare into the modern age while leaving the actual speech in tact is novel, it's something that could have gone horrifically wrong but they managed to pull it off in a way that wasn't distracting or confusing or that took away from the story. Yes, it's stylized - but what's wrong with stylized? It's done well - the film is consistent, it's funny, it's dramatic, it's beautiful to look at and very visually interesting.

And I would disagree that the spirit of the play got thrown to the wayside, I'd disagree with that completely. What did you want? A regular period drama where everyone speaks in prim, Oxford English accents and prances around in those strange puffy pants? Please. We've seen that a million times.

Give it some credit. It was a bold move, it's something that hadn't been done effectively before. I thought it was interesting, new and creative - much better than the old, boring period pieces of crap that get churned out. It was nice to see a film that makes the story accessible and interesting to the new generation, I like how it managed to breathe new life into very old material.

I'm not claiming it to be the best film in the world, I just think you're being far, far too harsh on it and are focusing too much on this idea you've concocted of it being some MTV generation flick. There's a lot of nuance to the film, particularly if you take it out of the context of the story and examine it from a technical perspective.

I saw the film and liked it but its nowhere in the same league as Zefferelli's R & J, or Brannagh's Shakespeare or Ian McKellan's Richard III or Richard Burton's Hamlet, Hoffman's Midsummer Night's Dream, Peter Brook's Lear,Orson Well's Macbeth, and I could go on. Hardly men walking around in Puffy pants. AND WAY WAY more effective the Baz.

desolate sun · 13-06-2011 08:22PM

I saw The Truth About Dogs and Cats last night and while Janeane Garofola is not in the same league as Uma Thurman, she is an attractive woman. She was made to look a bit frumpy in the film also.
I think it's the whole package thing. She had a pretty face but a not-great figure. I think it's the same with Dawn French getting Richard Armitage. She has a beautiful face but because she is quite obese, people don't really see her as beautiful.

But I still see it as Hollywood ugly. I don't particularly want to see 'average' people on TV. I see enough everyday!

mcmoustache · 13-06-2011 09:53PM

In the South Park movie, Celine Dion sleeps with Ugly Bob. He had a bag over his head, though, so I'm not sure if it counts.

rannerap · 13-06-2011 10:30PM

The only film I can think of where the hot guy falls for the plain girl is angus thongs and perfect snogging! I really really fancy Seth Rogen

and the other guy from knocked up who plays the pervy guy that hits on her sister, Marshall from how I met your mother

I actually only watched that Film last night

parker kent · 13-06-2011 11:28PM

seenitall wrote: »

I just think the spirit of the play got completely thrown by the wayside, to the point where you can hardly take in the language for all the distraction going on, and the language/dialogue does need a bit of taking in, as all the plays written in a very different era do.

I couldn't let this pass, it is entirely in the spirit of the play. All Shakespeare's plays are theatrical experiences and Romeo+Juliet was entirely in that spirit. I admired the way he brought the language into the 20th Century. A great production of Shakespeare makes the language come alive and easily understood. Baz did that IMO. We discussed this in UCD when we did Shakespeare on Romance and the general feeling in the class was that he did a good job.

seenitall · 14-06-2011 12:59AM

Sorry PK, still not feeling it. At all. The general opinion of your UCD class/module on Shakespeare and Romance notwithstanding.

I must be "spoiled" by Branagh's wonderful, inspired, creative, and modern adaptations of the 90's, which can't be further from R+J style film if they tried - Baz doesn't get a look in in comparison! IMO

metrovelvet · 14-06-2011 09:40AM

seenitall wrote: »

Sorry PK, still not feeling it. At all. The general opinion of your UCD class/module on Shakespeare and Romance notwithstanding.

I must be "spoiled" by Branagh's wonderful, inspired, creative, and modern adaptations of the 90's, which can't be further from R+J style film if they tried - Baz doesn't get a look in in comparison! IMO

I can see the appeal in it for fourteen year olds. R and J or Julius Ceasar is the usual first introduction to Shakespeare for American students in 8th grade [second year].

The Brannagh, McKellen, and others mentioned, are probably too subtle and nuanced for the average 13-14 year old student who has just been introduced to Shakespeare.

But aside from that, its has theatrical razzmatazz alright, but I dont find it that powerful, I don't walk away from it feeling tragedy has just happenned.

Movies/TV Shows with hot guys ending up with ugly girls?

Comments