Looks over Talent

Seems lots of stars are beautiful, polished and crafted by hand. But as actors many get away with not being so much of that. Now, there are those who are appreciated for their work regardless but, I also feel the ones who are not "star material" or have certain looks are left in the shadows?

Why is this industry so weird like that?

Because cinema is a visual medium.. and there are so many good actors.. so the better looking good actors are picked over the not so good looking actors. And then there is the nepotism.

Originally posted by: ponymo

Because cinema is a visual medium.. and there are so many good actors.. so the better looking good actors are picked over the not so good looking actors. And then there is the nepotism.

Of course there are some not so good actors too but then they are never cast in the arty type movies, but in the typical Bollywood film where the audience frankly isn't there to see great acting but just to have a good time.

Ya true. It's like some action films in the states they don't make sense but its visually fun to see. And nepotism is in basic jobs too. I applied for some job and the interviewer was asking if I was related to anyone. Just shows that connection can get you almost anywhere 😕

Irrespective of how good a non-good looking actor might be, there will always be someone who can do the same job and look better doing so. Isnt it justified then to cast someone who is handsome?

Well as others mentioned here, cinema is a visual medium. To be a star you have to be atleast normal looking. Even the art house actors whom many people claim to be ugly are in fact quite good looking IMO.

Coming to the A-listers, we dont expect every performance to be oscar-worthy. That would be stupid. Of course we are here to be entertained, to have a good time, and to enjoy the typical BW style song and dance.

But sometimes some people are so bad, expressionless, annoying or OTT that the bad acting gets n the way of our enjoyment of the film. In these cases no amount of good looks can save the film.

Visual medium doesn't mean that there have to be only beautiful people on screen.

A film is experienced with all senses. It's of vital importance that the story speaks to people and the actors do their job.

It is this penchant that BW has in choosing looks over talent that we now have a scenario where mostly big-budget Khan movies do well. It's 'cause looks don't make the audience connect with a character and consequentially the actor.

This emotional connection is a matter of the heart and needs clever and hearty performances that make their space in the audience's mind and stay there for a long time.

If all the audience wanted was to see beautiful people on screen, then why would they watch 50+ year old actors?

Well I can't speak for everyone else but I like seeing beautiful people on screen and it's one major reason I'd pay to watch a movie. Having fallen in love with a beautiful face ages back and still continuing to love them or falling brand newly for a new handsome actor..

And except a few all the others r decent actors and so why will they cast an ugly person (in actuality ugly not some stupid forum standard) who can act when they can take a beautiful looking person who can do a decent enough job of the same and look good while doing it?

It might be unfair to put it bluntly but it's what sells tickets (mostly) so that plus nepotism (even here almost all r better than average lookers if u see) is the reason for the current A listers to be the chosen ones

story , good looks and talent all contribute to the overall effect