A slight switch for the blog, with Meme of the Week metamorphosing into the more versatile Question of the Week from now on. And to kick it off, we ask the simple question, prompted by today's news:
Are the actors in British TV shows too ugly?
Have all the pretty ones gone to America, leaving the ugly ones behind? Are the stereotypes about British dentistry, pasty skin and undernourishment true? And will people in other countries only watch shows starring pretty people? What say you?
As always, leave a comment with your answer or a link to your answer on your own blog.
October 22, 2009 | Reply
No. I'm sick of everyone I see on TV being beautiful. It's boring and unrealistic. Much better to have a range of appearances, gives everyone more character. I like having some eye candy, but not wall to wall. And I loathe the implication that only good looking people have proper stories, and everybody else is just a best friend in somebody else's movie.
October 22, 2009 | Reply
I think British producers are just more willing to put "ugly" or average-looking people on TV, even in starring roles. It's more real and something I wish US producers did more.
But, I'll admit that there's something to be said for the theory that people don't always want "themselves" reflected back via their TV sets. They want escapism and sexiness, so it's little wonder most of the top TV stars are attractive. I would change the nature of many TV shows if the leads were truly ugly, too. Imagine if Dexter Morgan was a bucktoothed man with bad acne and greasy haircut -- would you want to follow HIS life as a serial-killer?
Re: British teeth - it's funny how I just don't even notice "bad teeth" like Americans do. I remember an American leaping on the appalling dentistry of Robert Webb and David Mitchell while watching Peep Show, and I'd never given their mouths a second thought before then. But, while having good teeth is certainly a must, the Americans take it too far -- so everyone has boring rows of pearly white cartoon gobs.
October 22, 2009 | Reply
Totally agree with Marie.
It seems odd to me that this matters to Americans.
October 23, 2009 | Reply
"Totally agree with Marie.It seems odd to me that this matters to Americans. "
Please don't lump us all together. I want good actors, I don't want mannequins.
October 23, 2009 | Reply
Sorry- read my comment as scepticism!
I've been thinking about this and realised that there are no shows that I have stopped watching due to ugly actors but there are shows that I have stopped watching in part due to attractive/bland actors. Most things on the CW for example. And even Primeval (which is British!). Basically I find that attractive actors require me to sustain my disbelief even more than I normally would (and as a scifi fan, I think of myself as pretty good at doing that!) so it makes it harder for me to watch a tv show.
October 23, 2009 | Reply
So, mostly agreed that in artistic terms, the emphasis on Being Really Really Good Looking is a bad idea, and the best actor for the role (who, of course, might coincidentally be good looking) should get the part.
But moving on, more pragmatically, should British TV producers cast prettier people anyway? Making TV shows isn't cheap, and most shows with ambition and matching budgets, need to be sold abroad in order to make money - there are very shows that aren't co-productions these days. So if the rest of the world (it's not just the US and Canada) needs pretty people in shows, does that mean we should do as they want in order to sell our shows overseas?
After all, the UK is the world's largest format exporter, but not the largest exporter of shows - is that because other countries love ideas, but can't stand what we do with them?
October 23, 2009 | Reply
Rob there is a huge crossover problem in the book world from UK to US markets (though not necessarily the ROW) and ditto the music industry I guess. I know in my game it's alot to do with American sensibilities only wanting "typical" English scenes, ie cutesy chocolate box houses and Miss Marple type villages. They also don't like things too realistic - I had a lot of problem selling books I edited over there, while we took lots of their stuff. But UK teens tend to be depicted realistically, US teens do not.
I can think of dozens of British actors I find attractive, but they aren't the pretty boy ones, it's the ones with character, and the ones who bring soul to the story that I go for - pretty boys (with the honourable exception of Johnny Depp who has spent a career clevely avoiding pretty boy roles) don't do it for me, but depressingly, they probably would make a show sell better. But then again, does it matter if we don't sell the original - maybe each territory needs to remake an idea to fit into its own particular cultural niche? Who are we to say just cos it works in the UK, doesn't mean it should work elsewhere.
October 23, 2009 | Reply
My problem is with what seems to constitute 'pretty' in American, mainly female, mainstream television. If I have to stomach one more bland, identikit, stick insect Auton fresh off the production line fooling nobody while pretending to be 'fiesty' or 'her own woman' while dying slowly of malnutrition or being poisoned by the eighteenth layer of foundation applied that morning, I might just barf on a box set. Really good/bad recent examples are Riley in CSI (dunno the actresses name which says a lot), and the lead in Fringe (character name and actress unknown to me, which says even more). Blond and pretty, I guess, but both unable to do anything with the character. Had Riley been a big fat girl with a morbid sense of humour, that would have given the rest of the CSI cast something to bounce off (excuse the pun) and I might have come to like her, perhaps even build a stalker like crush on her. It happened with Ness in Gavin and Stacey, it could happen again.