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

forensic · 14-06-2011 10:18AM

I've been thinking about this and I can only come up with meh man, gorgeous woman, so not really answering the OP. What I've come up with so far is the cast of Friends.

Ross, meh, Rachel, gorgeous.

Chandler, meh, Monica, gorgeous.

Mike, meh, Phoebe, gorgeous.

Attractiveness is such a subjective thing though. I don't find Brangelina particularly yum. What is considered "attractive" these days changes on a daily basis as far as I can see.

Having said that, I'm married and would say looks wise my hubby is more attractive than me, so maybe he'd be out of my league on the attractiveness scale? We're happy though so that's all that matters in my book!

jackiebaron · 14-06-2011 10:34AM

Madonna......ugly, snotty, neurotic, narcissistic cnut!
Guy Richie....handsome, down-to-earth cool-dude.

QED!

metrovelvet · 14-06-2011 10:45AM

^ MOney can make the eyes of the beholder change their viewing lenses.

parker kent · 14-06-2011 02:09PM

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

Not saying I personally prefer it or that Baz created a classic, just that it is true to the original. My personal preference is for an RSC version at the Globe. Although to give this some on topicness (is that a word?!:pac:), Romeo and Juliet does often feature a more handsome Romeo than Juliet. Now they are rarely to ever ugly, but you get what I mean.

metrovelvet · 14-06-2011 02:47PM

parker kent wrote: »

Not saying I personally prefer it or that Baz created a classic, just that it is true to the original. My personal preference is for an RSC version at the Globe. Although to give this some on topicness (is that a word?!:pac:), Romeo and Juliet does often feature a more handsome Romeo than Juliet. Now they are rarely to ever ugly, but you get what I mean.

Romeo has to be handsome because he is fickle and somewhat stupid so he has to have something going for him.

He fell in love with Juliet about five minutes after Rosalind dumped him.

seenitall · 14-06-2011 08:33PM

parker kent wrote: »

...saying... just that it is true to the original.

Well... yes. The very point I've been disputing.

MV, good observation!

Never thought of that (or had it pointed out to me before).

Catari Jaguar · 14-06-2011 08:40PM

Why is this thread now about a Baz Luhrmann film???

seenitall · 14-06-2011 08:53PM

It is also about Madonna, the cast of Friends and a few other things besides.

But if we hadn't been discussing that "Luhrmann's film", I wouldn't have found myself challenged on my expectations of a Juliet's beauty, or learned why Romeo might be the prettier out of the pair! On Topic with a capital T.

passion · 14-06-2011 10:04PM

Only one i can think of is Sonya and Jamie in Eastenders. But the actress got awful hate mail by other girls telling her she wasn't attractive enough to be with him

krudler · 14-06-2011 10:20PM

forensic wrote: »

I've been thinking about this and I can only come up with meh man, gorgeous woman, so not really answering the OP. What I've come up with so far is the cast of Friends.

Ross, meh, Rachel, gorgeous.

Chandler, meh, Monica, gorgeous.

Mike, meh, Phoebe, gorgeous.

A girl I know would claw your eyes out for that :pac:

rannerap · 14-06-2011 11:36PM

krudler wrote: »

A girl I know would claw your eyes out for that :pac:

so would I!!! I think hes gorgeous!!!!:D

parker kent · 14-06-2011 11:53PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Romeo has to be handsome because he is fickle and somewhat stupid so he has to have something going for him.

He fell in love with Juliet about five minutes after Rosalind dumped him.

I don't think the source material suggests that, but R&J tends to be marketed towards girls/women so that is my reason behind Romeo tending to be better looking of the two.

In the play itself, Romeo falling in love so soon after the Rosaline break up can be read a few ways. One is that it was just a device to have him broken hearted and ready to meet his "true love". The other is that it represents the fickle nature of love. I prefer that reading of it myself. But I don't think the play necessarily says Romeo is better looking. Both characters treat the other as the most beautiful creature they have ever seen (they would do being 14 year olds :pac:) As Romeo says, "For I never saw true beauty 'til this night." Love is fickle, depressed from being dumped by Rosaline one minute, head over heels in love with Juliet the next.

seenitall · 15-06-2011 03:49PM

parker kent wrote: »

The other is that it represents the fickle nature of love.

That doesn't make much sense?

The play is a tragedy. It is about the power of love. Two people die because of the mistaken perception that they can't be together. How in the world is that fickle?

"Love" is not fickle in that play. Romeo, on the other hand, is - until he redeems himself with his love-lorn suicide. You don't get much more constant/less fickle than death.

EDIT: perhaps you meant "the fickle nature of Romeo's love for Rosalind"? If so, apologies for debating with myself!

metrovelvet · 15-06-2011 04:14PM

seenitall wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense? The play is a tragedy. It is about the power of love. Two people die because of the mistaken perception that they can't be together. How in the world is that fickle?

"Love" is not fickle in that play. Romeo, on the other hand, is - until he redeems himself with his love-lorn suicide. You don't get much more constant/less fickle than death.

EDIT: perhaps you meant "the fickle nature of Romeo's love for Rosalind"? If so, apologies for debating with myself!

Romeo is fickle. His swearing by the moon kind of illustrates that. Juliet, the brains in this couple, tells him you better come up with something better than that. If Baz were here he'd be quoting Beyonce, 'put a ring on it.' He is also impulsive. He is a young man, not surprising qualities there really.

@PK

Romeo has to be good looking, one because we are talking film here, and two because we have to see what is drawing Juliet so strongly into betraying her family. If he is not good looking, given that he has not much else going for him, the audience will be harder to seduce.

mikemac · 15-06-2011 04:25PM

She's all that
Rachael Leigh Cook was attractive to begin with but they got all the cliches in; dowdy clothes, thick glasses, clusmy and dropping books, unusual hobby.

The challenge is set, the main man Freddie Prinze Jr will pursue her. Her confidence explodes, she changes her looks and they end up a cute couple

She's out of my league
Ordinary guy working a ****ty job in the airport. Gorgeous women leaves her phone behind and they meet up.
Romance follows, her good looking ex is of course an asshole and so the girl after a few hiccups falls for the "nice guy"

Cute film but I hated the tagline and the constant 10/10 but you're a 5/10, you may punch above your weight and get a 7/10 but no 10/10 girl will look at you.

parker kent · 15-06-2011 04:25PM

seenitall wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense? The play is a tragedy. It is about the power of love. Two people die because of the mistaken perception that they can't be together. How in the world is that fickle?

"Love" is not fickle in that play. Romeo, on the other hand, is - until he redeems himself with his love-lorn suicide. You don't get much more constant/less fickle than death.

EDIT: perhaps you meant "the fickle nature of Romeo's love for Rosalind"? If so, apologies for debating with myself!

Well you sort of get what I mean with fickle, but I think there is a subtext that love that seems permanent often is not. That is represented in Romeo being so easily won over by somebody new. Maybe fickle was the incorrect word, but it shows that love is the opposite to eternal.

I said in class once that given Romeo's actions after meeting Juliet, it is not inconceivable that were he to live, he'd have just moved on to somebody else. He is irrational as many are with love/lust. Suicide is part of that irrationality and shows he is a wild card. He acts in the moment. What we love one minute, we can forget about the next. Yes the play is a tragedy and the complexity of love is investigated throughout. You have to remember that he based the play on 14 year olds and we all know they teenage love is fickle. Heartbroken one minute, in love with a pretty face the next. In many ways, we never really move beyond those emotions.

@metrovelvet: I was tried to say something similar to what you just said when I mentioned how R&J being aimed at women in modern adaptations means that he tends to be more attractive. The women watching need to believe that he is worth the "risk".

seenitall · 15-06-2011 04:26PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Romeo is fickle. His swearing by the moon kind of illustrates that.

Agreed. That's what I said.

The play is a straight tragedy, though. His fickleness has to be redeemed, his love for Juliet shown to be the real thing after all, or else it wouldn't work?

EDIT:

@ parker kent

Well, I disagree with your view on his suicide, obviously. A classical tragedy is about catharsis/redemption, and I think a playwright of that era would have had that in mind more than the vagaries of teenage love or the craziness of "kids". Weren't people usually married in their teens, having to assume all adult responsibilities anyway, in that era? There were no "teenagers" as such, the term didn't exist.

OK, NOW I'm seriously off-topic! Enough from me.

parker kent · 15-06-2011 04:30PM

seenitall wrote: »

Agreed. That's what I said.

The play is a straight tragedy, though. His fickleness has to be redeemed, his love for Juliet shown to be the real thing after all, or else it wouldn't work?

The tragedies are not so black and white. It doesn't *have* to be the real thing. The tragedy is about love and it's impact on people.

metrovelvet · 15-06-2011 04:38PM

parker kent wrote: »

Well you sort of get what I mean with fickle, but I think there is a subtext that love that seems permanent often is not. That is represented in Romeo being so easily won over by somebody new. Maybe fickle was the incorrect word, but it shows that love is the opposite to eternal.

I said in class once that given Romeo's actions after meeting Juliet, it is not inconceivable that were he to live, he'd have just moved on to somebody else. He is irrational as many are with love/lust. Suicide is part of that irrationality and shows he is a wild card. He acts in the moment. What we love one minute, we can forget about the next. Yes the play is a tragedy and the complexity of love is investigated throughout. You have to remember that he based the play on 14 year olds and we all know they teenage love is fickle. Heartbroken one minute, in love with a pretty face the next. In many ways, we never really move beyond those emotions.

@metrovelvet: I was tried to say something similar to what you just said when I mentioned how R&J being aimed at women in modern adaptations means that he tends to be more attractive. The women watching need to believe that he is worth the "risk".

Also in film the romantic hero has to be handsome. Theatre is a bit different, more leeway there.

And I totally think that Romeo would have fallen out of love with J if he hadnt killed himself first.

metrovelvet · 15-06-2011 04:44PM

parker kent wrote: »

The tragedies are not so black and white. It doesn't *have* to be the real thing. The tragedy is about love and it's impact on people.

Thats whats so great about them - they are about so many things. I see R&J as a tale of love that cannot survive without the support of the community.

parker kent · 15-06-2011 04:55PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats whats so great about them - they are about so many things. I see R&J as a tale of love that cannot survive without the support of the community.

There's a big theory out there that Romeo was really in love with Mercutio and that their love is the only true love in the play.

seenitall · 15-06-2011 04:57PM

parker kent wrote: »

The tragedies are not so black and white. It doesn't *have* to be the real thing. The tragedy is about love and it's impact on people.

Ugh. That's all modern reading. In those times it would have been a sacrilege to go "Oh, he would've fallen for the next girl in a matter of days if he'd survived". They were much simpler times, and yes, in a straight tragedy which is about LOVE, it would have been that black and white.

liah · 15-06-2011 04:58PM

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh. That's all modern reading. In those times it would have been a sacrilege to go "Oh, he would've fallen for the next girl in a matter of days if he'd survived". They were much simpler times, and yes, in a straight tragedy which is about LOVE, it would have been that black and white.

What's so wrong about reading it in a modern context? Doesn't it show the quality and timelessness of the work when, centuries later, we are still finding new interpretations?

Just because the view is 'modern' doesn't mean it's incorrect.

seenitall · 15-06-2011 05:05PM

liah wrote: »

What's so wrong about reading it in a modern context? Doesn't it show the quality and timelessness of the work when, centuries later, we are still finding new interpretations?

Just because the view is 'modern' doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Agreed. Please disregard my "ugh", everyone.

parker kent · 15-06-2011 05:11PM

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh. That's all modern reading. In those times it would have been a sacrilege to go "Oh, he would've fallen for the next girl in a matter of days if he'd survived". They were much simpler times, and yes, in a straight tragedy which is about LOVE, it would have been that black and white.

I know you've disregarded they "ugh", but I would add that even then it was not that simple. Some of these theories date back centuries.

The Mercutio theory may be relatively new, but much of these theories emerge as information comes out that we didn't previously know. The gay theory is popular amongst people who think Shakespeare was gay.

metrovelvet · 15-06-2011 05:16PM

It was based on Pyramis and Thisbe and put in an Italian context for an English audience. Whent things are OTHER, sometimes it's easier to see them.

I have no problem wih modernisation, as I loved Richard III [McKellen] but HATE HATE HATE the relevancy trap where the director starts prescribing meaning as in a 'post colinial' reading of The Tempest at teh Abbey I saw a number of years ago. Its making decisions FOR the audience.

R&J is not just about love but about long age family feuds in which the kids get destroyed. "TWO HOMES BOTH ALIKE IN DIGNITY',

seenitall · 15-06-2011 05:23PM

parker kent wrote: »

I know you've disregarded they "ugh"

Oh, I still stand by my post. The "ugh" was unnecessary, though.

The Mercutio theory rings a faint bell... I'm a loooong time out of college!!

parker kent · 15-06-2011 11:36PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was based on Pyramis and Thisbe and put in an Italian context for an English audience. Whent things are OTHER, sometimes it's easier to see them.

I have no problem wih modernisation, as I loved Richard III [McKellen] but HATE HATE HATE the relevancy trap where the director starts prescribing meaning as in a 'post colinial' reading of The Tempest at teh Abbey I saw a number of years ago. Its making decisions FOR the audience.

R&J is not just about love but about long age family feuds in which the kids get destroyed. "TWO HOMES BOTH ALIKE IN DIGNITY',

Well that is the thing, you can't say in a short post what any of the tragedies is "about". They are about a thousand different things. You can spend a lifetime studying them. So that was why I originally said they are not black and white. R&J is not just a black and white play about falling in love and there is no such thing as a black and white tragedy by Shakespeare.

Modern readings sometimes get a bad rep due to some off-the-wall theories. But many are excellent and just add to our knowledge of the play.

seenitall · 16-06-2011 12:22AM

parker kent wrote: »

R&J is not just a black and white play about falling in love and there is no such thing as a black and white tragedy by Shakespeare.

I never said there was, if you look at my posts. But the Elizabethan society would have been heaps more black-and-white in terms of what "true" love is (sanctified by marriage etc.), as well as morality, than ours is; and the playwrights of the era would have that era's sensibilities, so all I am saying is that, in that time, it would have been that black and white (aka simple): they both died tragic deaths because they couldn't be together. True love's ways! There is nothing to suggest otherwise in that cathartic ending, as written. It is straight.

Applying modern sensibilities to a character of that time is perfectly fine, but I think it is also important to keep in mind that it was written in a specific way, at a specific time, the values and principles of which can differ vastly from those of our own.

parker kent · 16-06-2011 12:27AM

seenitall wrote: »

I never said there was, if you look at my posts. But the Elizabethan society would have been heaps more black-and-white in terms of what "true" love is (sanctified by marriage etc.), as well as morality, than ours is; and the playwrights of the era would have that era's sensibilities, so all I am saying is that, in that time, it would have been that black and white (aka simple): they both died tragic deaths because they couldn't be together. True love's ways! There is nothing to suggest otherwise in that cathartic ending, as written. It is straight.

Applying modern sensibilities to a character of that time is perfectly fine, but I think it is also important to keep in mind that it was written in a specific way, at a specific time, the values and principles of which can differ vastly from those of our own.

But like any era, the Elizabethans had intelligent viewers and those with a black & white attitude towards the play. Shakespeare managed to talk about of both sides of his mouth, he kept some people happy with the basic story, but he added depth for others. I think you are being unfair on the Elizabethan society and their capacity to analyse literature. They had many excellent scholars who are still quoted and referred to today.

It is no different to Christopher Nolan keeping the popcorn brigade happy with Inception but adding depth for more thoughtful movie goers. Which brings us back to Leo Di Caprio and Romeo :pac:

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

Comments