Mediocre Hollywood women

[Anonymous]

You seem jealous of blondes OP. Maybe go to the hairstylist instead of trashing those who already did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kristen bell is genuinely talented. Including her really undermines your list.
The rest are fine.
Blake Lively is California beautiful. I don’t find her interesting but whatever.
I think Emma Watson is very photogenic- not a fan of her acting, but I like her personally. That goes a long way.
Jennifer Aniston just has something about her. I remember seeing her in a B movie when she was just starting out. She has an it factor. She stood out.

Agree with all go this, especially on Aniston. She definitely has the "it" factor, and tremendous comedic timing. She also is a more than capable dramatic actress, was excellent in Good Girl, Cake, and The Yellow Birds. She's never claimed to be a great beauty, and neither has Kristen Bell. They are both talented imo.

I could not disagree more about Jennifer Aniston. Her acting has very little range. Even Good Girl and Cake felt like we were watching JA emote rather than a different character.

I do like Kristen Bell as an actress - she has a bit of zing. I thought she was deviously great in House of Lies, and very funny in The Good Place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jennifer Lawrence.

+1 How is she not number one on your list OP?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kristen bell is genuinely talented. Including her really undermines your list.
The rest are fine.
Blake Lively is California beautiful. I don’t find her interesting but whatever.
I think Emma Watson is very photogenic- not a fan of her acting, but I like her personally. That goes a long way.
Jennifer Aniston just has something about her. I remember seeing her in a B movie when she was just starting out. She has an it factor. She stood out.

+1 to kristin bell. She can also do comedy, has a great range. I think op doesn't get how difficult good acting is. Just watch one of those free short style shows on amazon prime to see truly bad acting and you will realize how spoon fed you have been.

KB is amazing.

I like all those actresses, but KB is a treasure.

[Anonymous]

This thread is disturbing in the way it conflates beauty with acting ability and star quality. Where is the list of leading men who aren’t handsome enough to be considered Hollywood stars? Why do you have to be unusually beautiful to be considered a movie star?

I watch a lot of British TV and movies, and the actors are mostly just ordinary looking people. They are exordinary actors and their abilities make for riveting performances.

It’s just stupid that some family sitcom or drama must be cast with only good looking people to be watchable. That’s what Hollywood producers think, anyway, and it’s a toxic idea. This thread reinforces it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbing in the way it conflates beauty with acting ability and star quality. Where is the list of leading men who aren’t handsome enough to be considered Hollywood stars? Why do you have to be unusually beautiful to be considered a movie star?

I watch a lot of British TV and movies, and the actors are mostly just ordinary looking people. They are exordinary actors and their abilities make for riveting performances.

It’s just stupid that some family sitcom or drama must be cast with only good looking people to be watchable. That’s what Hollywood producers think, anyway, and it’s a toxic idea. This thread reinforces it.

Well, you are of course right. But Hollywood producers are generally male, so they want to believe that ugly men can get beautiful women the way that average at best actors do in the movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbing in the way it conflates beauty with acting ability and star quality. Where is the list of leading men who aren’t handsome enough to be considered Hollywood stars? Why do you have to be unusually beautiful to be considered a movie star?

I watch a lot of British TV and movies, and the actors are mostly just ordinary looking people. They are exordinary actors and their abilities make for riveting performances.

It’s just stupid that some family sitcom or drama must be cast with only good looking people to be watchable. That’s what Hollywood producers think, anyway, and it’s a toxic idea. This thread reinforces it.

No.

The examples I provided were meant to display cases where the starlet is neither stunningly beautiful or stunning talented and yet had been elevated in celebrity profile as if she did.

[Anonymous]

You know, I don't spend any time thinking about Jennifer Aniston or Kristen Bell or any other other ones whose names I can't think of but they seem to pop up regularly on these lists of starlets who are hated for being popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is disturbing in the way it conflates beauty with acting ability and star quality. Where is the list of leading men who aren’t handsome enough to be considered Hollywood stars? Why do you have to be unusually beautiful to be considered a movie star?

I watch a lot of British TV and movies, and the actors are mostly just ordinary looking people. They are exordinary actors and their abilities make for riveting performances.

It’s just stupid that some family sitcom or drama must be cast with only good looking people to be watchable. That’s what Hollywood producers think, anyway, and it’s a toxic idea. This thread reinforces it.

No.

The examples I provided were meant to display cases where the starlet is neither stunningly beautiful or stunning talented and yet had been elevated in celebrity profile as if she did.

First of all, they are much better looking than your average BBC star and than your average neighbor. Second, even given that, you still think they are insufficiently attractive and thus are “baffled” as to why they are “elevated.”

[Anonymous]

The only one that really confuses me is the blonde chick from Big Bang Theory. She's not particularly pretty, a terrible actress, and I feel like I see her everywhere. I just assume she's a connected Scientologist or has a parent in the industry.

OP's list is all people who can at least act, even if they're not the most OMGorgeous women I've ever seen. Aniston doesn't have much range but everybody from Friends was able to ride it to levels of success that their acting/looks don't really support -- Matt LeBlanc still gets a shot at piloting his own sitcom series seemingly every other year, and he's never had a post-Friends success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only one that really confuses me is the blonde chick from Big Bang Theory. She's not particularly pretty, a terrible actress, and I feel like I see her everywhere. I just assume she's a connected Scientologist or has a parent in the industry.

OP's list is all people who can at least act, even if they're not the most OMGorgeous women I've ever seen. Aniston doesn't have much range but everybody from Friends was able to ride it to levels of success that their acting/looks don't really support -- Matt LeBlanc still gets a shot at piloting his own sitcom series seemingly every other year, and he's never had a post-Friends success.

None of the Friends cast will ever have a success like that one. That was a one in a million. With the exception of Cox (who messed up her beautiful face), all are respected working actors. In fact, I believe Le Blanc has the most award noms post-Friends: 3 Emmy and 2 Globe noms for Episodes. Perry, Kudrow, and Aniston both have post-Friends award noms as well. Schwimmer was nom'd for the OJ Simpson trial mini-series, and has been active in theater. I just don't think those actors are the best examples of "mediocrity rewarded."

And most of the "beauties" OP selected are not particularly good actors.

[Anonymous]

OP is saying that the only reason these women are successful is because they are white? How is this sort of racist comment acceptable?