MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > The Plain Girl Syndrome

The Plain Girl Syndrome

posted 2 years ago by jriley555 (8551)
54 replies | jump to latest

Have you noticed that, increasingly, plain girls play the top roles ? That the guys are as often as not prettier than the women they play opposite to ? I offer, as evidence :

Anne Hathaway
Kiera Knightly
Julia Stiles
Jennifer Garner

A lot of these Netflix series have that aspect, a plain-jane as the central female character and a supposed love interest.

I'm not saying they have to be playboy material, but at least ... cute.

Fight me on this, if you like. Do you see this as a trend, or do you find, for example, the aforementioned actresses someone you'd look twice at on the street.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

I don't see it. Gal Gadot, Margot Robbie, Emma Stone and Scarlett Johansson are still on top.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

OK, I grant you all dose. It was rather a broad brush I did there.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

Also in the 90s / 2000s the "plain look" actresses were also highly popular, like Jodie Foster, Sandra Bullock, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Love Hewitt, etc.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

I find every one of those you mentioned attractive, especially Hewitt.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

Hewitt is downright smokin' hot in this: https://moviechat.org/tt1625340/The-Client-List

[–] chilidoggg (14603) 2 years ago

Sarah Michelle Gellar was NOT plain!

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 2 years ago

I prefer a "plain girl" over some plastic Hollywood Barbie.

[–] diezman (2241) 2 years ago

I feel the same way.

I always preferred the "girl next door" look over the supermodel look.

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 2 years ago

"Supermodels" do absolutely nothing for me. They're too phony. And then there's the accompanying personality.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

Supermodels are usually not that pretty, they're just tall. But just, say, a decade or two ago actresses like Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Salma Hayek, etc. all were stunningly beautiful.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 2 years ago

I agree, all of those women were stunning. But I think acting is not only about stunning. For example, I think Zendaya is stunningly beautiful, but I find her acting to be sleep-inducing. She just doesn't have (as far as I can tell, I mean maybe she'll mature into it) the insight to make a character seem really interesting.

I agree with what you say about supermodels also. The average woman is about 5'5", I don't understand why clothes have to be designed for, and pictured on, women who are 5'10". It throws off the design averages. I'm 5'0" and dresses that are shown on websites as knee-length, come down to my ankles! If women's clothing was designed for the average woman instead of unusually tall women, then I would probably be able to find more clothing that fit me.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) 2 years ago

Ditto. Love a girl in glasses, too (but then, I've always preferred Velma to Daphne on Scooby-Doo!).

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 2 years ago

I also have a thing for girls with glasses. (I liked Velma, too.) Years ago, one of my favorites was Kellie Martin on Life Goes On: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/29/11/0d291136a6524570bb5482bbc6af94c7.jpg

My 90s dream girl is still looking good. Here's a more recent photo of Kellie:
https://hallmark.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/7bd5259/2147483647/strip/true/crop/821x821+154+0/resize/300x300!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhallmark-channel-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fac%2F3d%2Ffd6fc636133f80fc99fb920c51d5%2Fmysterywomanatfirstsight-landscape.jpg

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) 2 years ago

Very nice! 👍

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about models, a cute girl-next-door is just fine.

Don't really like the model look either.

Here's an example of some women I find attractive

Elizabeth Shue
Kate Beckinsale pre plastic make-over
Younger Katie Holmes
Brigit Fonda
etc.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) 2 years ago

Jennifer Garner plain? She was smokin' during Alias.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

I guess that's a taste thing.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Those are fairly attractive women in my opinion. Maybe not model attractive, but they can act too.

[–] joej2923 (3145) 2 years ago

Don't forget the power of makeup. Any woman can look way hotter with a painted face. Hathaway, Knightly and Garner have all been top-tier beauties. It looks like Julia Stiles was a child actor who still gets supporting roles BUT I don't believe she reached the same heights as the other actresses.

I think there will also be roles for attractive ladies BUT their ability to act will partly determine the trajectory of their careers.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 2 years ago

I think Julia Stiles is really talented, but there is a snarkiness about her, that I like, but that probably makes her not fit into a lot of women's roles.

[–] beantown23 (1438) 2 years ago

Back in my day it was the choice between Ginger Lynn or Amber Lynn or girl next door Mary Ann.vs. Ginger. I always prefer a natural busty woman like a Jane Russell or Karen Steele instead of flat chested Knightly or Stiles.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

that's the other thing. they tend to be flat-chested. but the guys are ripped. Who casts these things ?

[–] BeaSouth (3564) 2 years ago

This might have been the better thread topic actually. Is it a trend to have female leads who are more chiseled athlete types with 1.7% body fat than more curvy female starlets of the past. I don’t know one way or the other.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

True.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 2 years ago

Now that I have been wondering about too. Maybe it's also the types of roles that are being written for men, that require them to be ripped? I mean, it's not that I MIND it, but I also wouldn't mind if some of the men on screen looked more attainable, and slightly less enamored of their own muscle.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

[–] Zoltan (244) 2 years ago

Julia Stiles, to me, is very unique looking.

She hasn't aged super well, but back in the day she was wifey material. Definitely cute.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Yes she was very much a beauty in The Bourne Identity (2002)

[–] huwdj (4571) 2 years ago

No. And the examples you've given are just wrong. These are four beautiful women and I've seen at least three of them in high glamour perfume, or similar, adverts - a niche that tends to pick the current cream of the crop. I'd be curious to know who you consider beautiful.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

There is no wrong or right here. These are subjective evaluations. I don't think 80% of men would find these woman that note-worthy. You clearly find them attractive, and probably consider that your taste is more general. But then you have to deal with me & everyone in this thread who thinks otherwise.

[–] huwdj (4571) 2 years ago

This is true - but. The fact that some of these ladies have been used as representatives in beauty industry products would indicate greater appeal than a mere 20% of the male population. I'm not talking high fashion here where the emphasis might be on striking looks as much as beauty. Rather the kind of advert where they want us to consider buying something (relatively) expensive. I think you might even consider this an objective measurement?

[–] jriley555 (8551) 2 years ago

I see that as more a marketing directive - imposing a somewhat plastic and this within limits arbitrary standard of beauty, which definitely does have an influence, since we are a social, and therefore malleable, species.

We see it in changing looks in advertising through the decades/generations.

What I am, perhaps, putting forward is that there is a certain robust baseline of attractiveness that men (or women) will respond to without 'coaching'. :)