MovieChat Forums > Emma Stone Discussion > Am I in the minority for thinking she's ...

Am I in the minority for thinking she's not beautiful?

posted 7 years ago by ariagupta
72 replies | jump to latest

I think she's a terrific actress. But she isn't good looking in the least. Which is fine. Not all actors have to be necessarily good looking. If they can act well, and do justice to their character, that's all that matters. I'm a fan, but that's inspite of her looks.

To me, Emma Stone is an example of how an actor can achieve success due to their talent alone, even without good looks that is. But on these message boards, there seem to be a lot of threads devoted to just how beautiful she is. So am I in the minority for disagreeing with that? Or are there others who have the same opinion as me?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12865) 5 years ago

I just looked at her. On a scale of attractiveness, with 1 being "So ugly I gotta stab my eyes out," and 10 being "Totally hot, sex God(dess)," I'd say she ranks a 7 or 8, maybe a 7.5. Pretty, but kinda generic-looking in the beauty dept.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

I'm not sure why this is an issue..
She's attractive and appealing...some will find her beautiful (an over used term in Hollywood) and some may not.
But she's an actress, not a pin up girl.
If someone that acts is too "beautiful" or good looking then it would limit the roles they would be chosen for.
But you're acting like good looks and beautiful are one in the same. Emma has good looks.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

She isn't a great beauty, probably... moderately attractive at baseline. But since she's a Real Actor (with capital letters), she's willing to appear on screen as either looking her best, which is pretty good given the right makeup and lighting, or looking quite plain. And yes, she's looked plain as all hell in "Birdman" and "The Favourite", or the first 2/3 of "LaLa Land".

Most of the best actors are … moderately attractive, and can play people who look ordinary, or people who look glamorous. Being less than stunning is actually very useful to an actor, it means they can play both hotties and notties, they're more versatile than the beauties. Michelle Pfeiffer has never been able to play anything but a beauty, while Meryl Streep can play anyone.

[–] Rorikon (16800) 5 years ago

Agreed, moderately attractive at the face but ick, dem tiny tiny assets. Might as well be fondling a man. Bet her butt is flat too.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

She used to have a figure, about ten years ago circa "Easy A".

So either she's lost more weight than her straight male fans really like, or she's stopped faking it.

[–] looper007 (1152) 5 years ago

She's got the cute girl next door bring her home to meet mom look. She won't be troubling any most beautiful women lists. I think she's a attractive, but in the long run she be the type that grows old gracefully and probably as she get's older will look more beautiful.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

I agree that she'll age well. It's the great beauties who have trouble accepting the aging process, as they're desperate to stop the aging process and are prone to make fools of themselves trying.

People with middling looks tend to age the best, by the time they're "aging" they've already accepted that they'll never look perfect, and have learned to make the most of what they've got.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

She's cute. My younger Brother-in-law thonks she's really Hot. To each his own.

[–] BloodLake1987 (70) 5 years ago

Too skinny now, she looked much better earlier in her acting career.

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

She does facial expressions in movies that really makes her standout over someone that just reads there lines.

[–] L1 (1316) 4 years ago

I have no idea why people are falling for it.