We complain all the time about eye candy, both female and male, stinkin' up the soaps. But are there any so-called "hair models" and/or "himbos" who actually get a bad rap? Name some comely actors and actresses who, in your opinion, don't come up as short in the acting department as others might think.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by juniorz1

That's what most actors do now, period. Either play themselves or a false image of themselves. Smarmbuckets like Bradley Cooper and Ryan Reynolds or bores like Julia Roberts and Jennifer Aniston aren't getting by on talent.

I don't agree with that. I think Jennifer Aniston is talented and was quite great on Friends and in The Good Girl, the issue is that she keeps taking the same roles. She's not untalented, she just doesn't challenge herself.

People always seem to forget that prior to Pretty Woman (which of course made her a huge star), Julia Roberts won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Oscar and going way back to Mystic Pizza Roger Ebert and Katharine Hepburn were raving about how good she was.

Bradley Cooper was on Broadway and has taken on challenging roles in lesser known projects, but it wasn't until The Hangover that people started to pay attention to him, so of course those are the type of roles Hollywood is going to want him to play/offer him.

A lot of them took the career turns they did because of what the public responded to - it made them money. I think you can accuse them of not challenging themselves, but I don't think that makes any of them untalented. The mere fact that 20+ years later Hollywood still hasn't found an actress that has been able to consistently achieve the type of success Julia Roberts did says a lot quite frankly.

A lot of them took the career turns they did because of what the public responded to - it made them money. I think you can accuse them of not challenging themselves, but I don't think that makes any of them untalented.

I guess it's the chicken and the egg - if they are hiding all this talent in order to have success then over time there is less and less reason to call them talented. I would never call Sandra Bullock a very talented actress, but she's managed to have a career of both comedic and dramatic roles, in a variety of parts. Many others don't seem to bother. Aniston puts far more effort into playing a victim routine to the press than she ever has in her performances (which may be why almost all her films flop). Cooper is just another generic overaged frat boy in an industry full of them. So is Reynolds. If it makes them money, then they're doing the right thing for their careers, but little I've ever seen of them suggests untapped talent.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I thought Marnie whatever her last name was on ATWT was not as bad as she was made out to be. She was a competent actress who would have been better served in a supporting heroine role, like a daughter of Pam Wagner, John Dixon's niece.

Oh no. Marnie Schulenberg was TERRIBLE and so bland. And you'd think just about anyone could play Alison. You'd be wrong.

Arianne Zuker: derided for years on DAYS, returned to the show like a hurricane.

Austin Peck: wretched on DAYS, came into his own on ATWT. Slow Austin morphed into goofy and fun Brad.

Arianne Zucker is a GREAT choice. I hated her and Nicole her first couple years on DAYS, but the second they put a martini glass in her hand, Zucker rocked her material.

Oh no. Marnie Schulenberg was TERRIBLE and so bland. And you'd think just about anyone could play Alison. You'd be wrong.

I think Alison was a pretty worthless character - mostly because she had no real family. They made a huge mistake in rewriting history to make Susan seem like a bad mother. The annoying girl who played Allison at that time failed at giving Alison layers, and Emily was never mother material, and Susan was on the sidelines. There was no Ellen, or Betsy, or other support system, so Alison was just this plot device/cliche.

I thought Marnie gave her some backbone at times and I liked her work with Tom Degnan, but generally she seemed pointless. But I do think in another role, Marnie would have been OK. Just not a lead role. She reminded me so much of Robin Morse/Pam Wagner.

And the writing for Chris was 99.99% atrocious.

It was awful. Every time Chris was on screen I was hoping he would die of a heart attack. I really hated him.

I guess it's the chicken and the egg - if they are hiding all this talent in order to have success then over time there is less and less reason to call them talented. I would never call Sandra Bullock a very talented actress, but she's managed to have a career of both comedic and dramatic roles, in a variety of parts. Many others don't seem to bother. Aniston puts far more effort into playing a victim routine to the press than she ever has in her performances (which may be why almost all her films flop). Cooper is just another generic overaged frat boy in an industry full of them. So is Reynolds. If it makes them money, then they're doing the right thing for their careers, but little I've ever seen of them suggests untapped talent.

I didn't say anyone was hiding their talent, but you can't ignore the fact that Jennifer Aniston's best reviewed performance (The Good Girl) happened in a film that didn't do well at the box office. Two of Julia Roberts's best reviewed performances (Closer and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) came in films that didn't do well commercially either. You also can't ignore the fact that Bradley Cooper got very good reviews when he was on Broadway. As far as Sandra Bullock is concerned, I really don't see how she's challenged herself anymore than Aniston has.

Most of Jennifer Aniston's films haven't done that well at the box office. If anything I think it's because she hasn't done more to take chances.

Sandra has done a variety of comedy types as well as dramatic roles. Sometimes they were flops, but she took the risk. She has also played some character parts.

[Jessica Dunphy] failed at giving Alison layers, and Emily was never mother material, and Susan was on the sidelines. There was no Ellen, or Betsy, or other support system, so Alison was just this plot device/cliche.

Word. Soap characters, even ones who have been orphaned, for lack of a better word, need support systems to bring a sense of family into their lives. Otherwise, it's like they operate inside a vacuum; nothing they do has any consequence for their loved ones.

Most of Jennifer Aniston's films haven't done that well at the box office. If anything I think it's because she hasn't done more to take chances.

Sandra has done a variety of comedy types as well as dramatic roles. Sometimes they were flops, but she took the risk. She has also played some character parts.

Sandra's also a better actress.

She's no Cicely Tyson or Vanessa Redgrave but she understands & accepts her limitations.

Aniston doesn't have the chops to be a genuine movie star.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by DeeeDee

Sandra's also a better actress.

She's no Cicely Tyson or Vanessa Redgrave but she understands & accepts her limitations.

Aniston doesn't have the chops to be a genuine movie star.

I don't disagree with you on Jennifer not being able to be a movie star but I do disagree with you on Sandra being a better actress. Also let's not act like Rachel Green did not become something of an iconic television character, far more iconic than any character that Bullock has ever played.

Aniston in The Good Girl and on Friends > Anything Bullock has done (and yes that includes that piece of manure The Blind Side)

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by Vizion

Also let's not act like Rachel Green did not become something of an iconic television character, far more iconic than any character that Bullock has ever played.

Sandra starred in TWO 200 million movies in one year.

That's impressive for any actor (let alone a woman).

That's in addition to huge hits Miss Congeniality (comedy) & Speed (action) as well as impressive supporting dramatic roles in A Time To Kill & Crash (also both hits).

Also let's not act like Rachel Green did not become something of an iconic television character

Rachel was definitely popular but the only thing really iconic about the character was her hair.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by DeeeDee

I think Aniston's biggest acting is when she goes to the press. Her performances matter to her public image as much as when the Kardashian sister was on OLTL.

She could give good performances but I think she decided that it wasn't necessary, and, it seems to have paid off, so more power to her.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Sandra starred in TWO 200 million movies in one year.

That's impressive for any actor (let alone a woman).

That's in addition to Miss Congeniality & Speed as well as impressive supporting roles in A Time To Kill & Crash.

No she didn't. She starred in ONE.

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=sandrabullock.htm

The Proposal didn't make more than 200 million domestic (unless you're talking about worldwide and that's been done several times before by both men and women). Let's also not forget that colossal flop that was All About Steve. Also, people seem to ignore the fact that prior to 2009 Bullock's other 100 million dollar hit was damn near a decade before (2000 with Miss Congeniality).

Rachel was definitely popular but the only thing really iconic about the character was her hair.

Regardless, she'll probably be remembered longer and more fondly than any Bullock character will be.

And neither Aniston nor Bullock would ever make my favorite actress or movie star list.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by Vizion

Rachel is a television character, and Sandra's never been a regular on a hit sitcom, so that's an unfair comparison, IMO. TV characters are generally more visible than movie characters.

Word. Soap characters, even ones who have been orphaned, for lack of a better word, need support systems to bring a sense of family into their lives. Otherwise, it's like they operate inside a vacuum; nothing they do has any consequence for their loved ones.

I disagree totally. Some people really are orphaned by society and are out there sinking and swimming all on their own. That definitely wasn't right for Alison, but I don't think every soap character needs to have a support system or family or whatever. The lack of a proper support system can lead to some very disastrous (aka soapy! interesting!) results.

Edited April 26, 201114 yr by All My Shadows