the guy looked like a creepy molesty uncle. huge honker, ugly face, not remotely good looking, yet several plot lines had him dating gorgeous women and there was always that underlying theme of Elaine Nardo and Alex having sexual tension. He was so ugly! Why did Taxi keep trying to make Alex Reiger a stud?
shareHarlowe Thrombey please post a picture of your face so we can see your definition of handsome and studly, then we will know where to go with this discussion.
TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.
Mike said:
Harlowe Thrombey please post a picture of your face so we can see your definition of handsome and studly, then we will know where to go with this discussion
Yes, Harlowe, let's see your model looks. Once upon a time, men were judged on characterful looks, virility, etc... Look at old movies and very few male superstars were as pretty as say, Brad Pitt, Leo Di Caprio, Johnny Depp. Maybe Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Robert Taylor, then it dries up pretty fast after that. Try and widen your horizons.
shareWhat exactly was Elaine's "league?"
"IMDb...you will never find a more wretched hive of trolls and douchebaggery"
Samclyde said
What exactly was Elaine's "league?"
At least she crawled back looking good ;)
shareYes, Harlowe, let's see your model looks. Once upon a time, men were judged on characterful looks, virility, etc... Look at old movies and very few male superstars were as pretty as say, Brad Pitt, Leo Di Caprio, Johnny Depp. Maybe Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Robert Taylor, then it dries up pretty fast after that. Try and widen your horizons.
Harlowe Thrombey please post a picture of your face so we can see your definition of handsome and studly, then we will know where to go with this discussion.
Judd Hirsch was not a bad-looking guy.
As for age, these days any actor or actress over the age of 30 is considered to be "too old." And anyone over the age of 40 is supposed to be nonexistent.
Weird. If the leading actor is in his 40s, what of it? Why shouldn't he be?
My guess it was done to help foster the idea that you don't have to be "good looking" to be "stud".
It's complete BS, as his character, however well meaning, and with a good moral compass, probably should have gone out with women more his caliber.
A better message for the show might have been that you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you can find someone you like that likes you; i.e. someone who looked a little bit like him.
What was Elaine's "caliber."
"IMDb...you will never find a more wretched hive of trolls and douchebaggery"
You tell me.
But some guy with a honkin schnoz, semi bald, unkempt hair, and facial features that more resemble a greyhound crossed with a pug, ain't it.
And this comes from a man who's fat, bald and has a pretty big nose too. Even Alex in his prime wouldn't be able to attract the women he did unless he was fabulously wealthy, and even then I think it would be trying for the females in question.
That's honesty, and I wish we'd see more of it in TV than psuedo inner-city psychology dressed as a situation comedy.
My guess it was done to help foster the idea that you don't have to be "good looking" to be "stud".
It's complete BS, as his character, however well meaning, and with a good moral compass, probably should have gone out with women more his caliber.
I don't know about riots in the streets, but I'm also guessing there was some favoritism in the Hollywood structure of how he got the part.
A lot of people don't like to admit it, but physical attraction is part of love chemistry.
but I'm also guessing there was some favoritism in the Hollywood structure of how he got the part.
I think Judd Hirsch got the part because he's good at comedically portraying a sensible Everyman that viewers can easily relate to.
He also worked very well with the rest of the cast.
He's a Jew and Hollywood is run by them
shareBecause unlike today where good looks are confused with talent in the 70s you could be unlucky in looks but still be regarded as talented or a lady killer courtesy of actual talent or what kind of man you were.
shareYour opinion on Judd Hirsch's looks isn't widely shared, I'm afraid. Hirsch was average looking for the seventies. The character of Alex Reiger was an average looking guy with an interesting personality, and Hirsch played him perfectly. Female characters liked him because he was interesting to talk to, including Elaine. I never got the impression they were trying to make him out to be a stud. It's just that it's Hollywood and the actresses cast in his date roles tended to be attractive by default. Many shows still do this to this day.
What have you been reading, the gospel according to St. Bastard?
It's just like Woody Allen (or at least the characters he plays/creates) in all his movies!
the "Unattractive" city dwelling sweater and slacks wearing Jewish everyman with the annoying voice was very in vogue in the late 70s.
Female characters liked him because he was interesting to talk to,
ALL OF YOU REALLY think JUDD *beep* HIRSCH is GOOD LOOKING and NOT UGLY??? Are you all serious??? Who are you looking at?? I'm seeing a dumpy, old, middle aged man with a BEAK the size of GONZO'S from the Muppets! Are you people looking at the same man??? He was a total schlub! He walked all hunched over and had an annoying weird voice. He looked like MOE from the SIMPSONS! Are you people kidding me???
And to everyone saying "Post YOUR pic!" I assure you, I am no Brad Pitt but I am DEFINITELY 1 hundred million billion times better looking than JUDD HIRSCH!!! My nose alone is about 12 thousand times smaller and I am not a stocky/dumpy troll!
ALSO, to all you people saying "Back then they didn't focus as much on LOOKS!!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Arte you effing KIDDING ME? in the SAME show they had Wheeler and Tony Danza as the "go to" hot guys!!! They were constantly getting laid due to there LOOKS!!! (Both of them were IDIOTS!!! So much for "personality!")
My point was, why was JUDD lumped in with the GOOD LOOKING GUYS and you all cried like BABIEs about how "looks didnt matter back then!!" hahahahaha AGAIN...Tony and Jeff Conoway were TOTALLY hyped up as "The good looking guys" so your whole theory is NULL and VOID! I still wonder why the DUMPY guy that walked all HUNCHED over with a beak the size of CLEVELAND was lumped in with the actual ATTRACTIVE guys!
I am still laughing that people actually are defending Judd's looks! Yea, he was a good ACTOR, but looks wise? He was a triple bagger! If he was never famous or talented he'd be completely ignored by women!
Harlowe..i worked with a guy in the late 90's at a music store and he had looks along the line of Alex...he worked in our art room..didn't make much money...but he was intelligent,funny and a great listener...this guy not only dated the ''hot'' girls at our work(and career women)but they consistently fell in love with him...personality can play a big part in getting women believe it or not...because i have seen it happen.
shareYOU ARE SO RIGHT!!! This explains it all. Now if some people will just stop hatin' and trollin'...
i worked with a guy in the late 90's at a music store and he had looks along the line of Alex...he worked in our art room..didn't make much money...but he was intelligent,funny and a great listener...this guy not only dated the ''hot'' girls at our work(and career women)but they consistently fell in love with him...personality can play a big part in getting women believe it or not...because i have seen it happen.
"If he was never famous or talented he'd be completely ignored by women!"
It sounds like you answered your own question. You just admitted that there are other things women may care about.
It's been my experience that women aren't as critical about looks as men are and are usually more attracted to charm, wit, intellect, kindness, gentleness etc...Not to mention, just plan being secure in yourself.
Another thing to consider is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are women out there that think Tom Cruise or George Clooney are unattractive.
I agree he didn't have move star good looks but he wasn't the Elephant man either.
Ok, you got kind of weird and agressive in your response, so I'm honestly not sure if you're capable of understanding a reasonable response. I'm not slamming you, but what people were saying seemed to just fly right over you. I'll give it a shot though.
No, nobody was saying that Hollywood didn't have good looking people in the 70's, of course they did, as you pointed out, there were traditionally handsome men on Taxi. However, the 70's was a time when they did cast lot more people with natural looks. Look at Karen Gorney in Saturday Night Fever, she's not a bad looking woman, but a bit plain by Hollywood standards, and she was cast opposite John Travolta. To be clear, I'm not saying every person Hollywood cast was more earthy looking, of course they mostly cast very attractive people, but a lot of filmmakers were going for a more real look, so some less traditionally handsome actors/actresses got leading work. Dudley Moore is another example. Of course, they were usually cast alongside a very beautiful person, like Hirsch was with Henner.
Also, it was the decade of Woody Allen, and he bedded beautiful women in his films all the time. Casting someone like Judd Hirsch was probably an execs idea after watching Manhattan or Annie Hall. They also cast Bernie Kopell as a ladies man on Love Boat, I would say an even bigger stretch than Hirsch, although, to be fair, he was playing a doctor, so that could be used to explain his attraction to the opposite sex.
Finally, if you find Judd Hirsch to be that hideously ugly, fair enough I suppose, but to me, he just looked like an average guy.
It's the old "because I am attracted based on looks, everyone must be the same"-fallacy.
When men are attracted to women based on looks, they can't understand women being any different.
But they are. They are very different. Men have hard time understanding what women are attracted to, although they see women with ugly, fat, disgusting-looking men all the time. They still somehow think that a man's looks matter to a woman's sexuality.
Man can look like anything, it doesn't matter. If the man has high status, the woman will be attracted to the man, regardless of his looks. If the man has low or no status, the woman won't be attracted to the man, regardless of his looks.
By status, I simply mean a man's place in the hierarchy between men. An outlaw biker, murderer or even convicted rapist has a high status in that hierarchy. A good, normal man has a low or no status in that hierarchy. 'Exciting foreigner' (though probably not Latka style), charismatic alpha, a skilled PUA, a wealthy man, a useless celebrity, an alcoholic guitarist that drinks all the woman's money, a preselected man (such as married one) - here are some examples of high-status men. A chess club leader, a linux programmer, a shy, poor man living in his mother's basement, a hikikomori - here are a few examples of a low-status men.
So, women tend to be good-looking on TV, because that attracts men. Men don't have to look like anything specific, because their celebrity status will attract the women in any case.
It's sad that this planet has existed this long, and yet people here still don't understand the basics of almost anything.
- Dog Psychology? Let's use human psychology on them and dress them in cute clothes!
- Child Psychology? Let's spoil the brats and give them everything they want so they will scream in grocery stores while we don't even attempt to do anything about it!
- Female Psychology? Let's think they are just like men and are attracted to men based on men's looks!
The result: lots of confused men that can't understand why they can't get a woman although they are good-looking and dress well - so what if they're a bit shy and can't look women in the eyes at all.
Lots of bad dog handlers and dog owners that let the dog do whatever it wants and then wonder why the dog barks too much, too loud, and wrong moments, while they reward the dog for doing so by giving it treats and talking to it.
Lots of bad parents that act as enables of bad behaviour and expect the kids to understand their reasonable arguments about good behaviour just because the parents explained it all to the kids. And then wonder why the kids scream and punch the parents and become 'impossible' whenever they're among other people.
I can only shake my head at the ignorance.. the information is all out there, but no one seeks it, then they come to these forums to present their clueless theories.
Look, just watch Dog Whisperer and Cesar 911, Supernanny (the UK version preferably), and read some PUA sites and maybe MGTOW-videos on youtube to learn about dog, child and female psychology. You'll want to thank me.
It's not the era, it's just that women do not get aroused by faces any more than they get aroused by compliments or nice guys.
Of course women can APPRECIATE visual aesthetics, and even delude themselves that they like some guy because he's 'so handsome' - but when the woman finds out the guy is a nerdy, shy, penniless linux programmer with no ambition in life..
..besides playing video games in his mother's basement, even the best possible looks a man could ever have, won't make the woman's 'inbetween big toes' moist.
Even the most handsome guys that do get lots of women, do not get women BECAUSE they're handsome, but because of their status - projected or real.
This is always complicated by women's tendency to PROJECT, because it's hard for even women to know whether a man is someone they can get attracted to or not. So they use this shortcut to get attracted to the man (even if it means 'on false premises'), and only when they find out the truth, will their attraction either turn off, or amplify.
This is why women test men constantly, so they get either 'arousing feedback' or they get confirmation that this simp can be easily controlled by the woman's femininity and false promises - think in the terms of 'friendzone simp that serves the woman for free'. Think of the simps that buy women drinks in bars in the hopes the women would like them.
Women can appreciate a beautiful painting, but they're not going to be aroused by it. This is the way women can appreciate 'handsome men' - the men are -potentially- attractive to them, but not yet actually.
So women project all kinds of attractive qualities to handsome men - whether they think the man is a doctor or a secret criminal, is up to the individual women. It's only after they find out the truth that they become disappointed (or fully attracted).
Also, many men that have high status, happen to be 'handsome' - and many men -think- it's their looks, so that boosts their confidence, which then makes them high-status men (confidence is one of the marks of high status). So sometimes it can be a self-feeding cycle that ends up feeding these misconceptions that women care about a man's looks.
Tom Cruise is not attractive to women because of his looks, but because he's a pre-selected, wealthy celebrity alpha with lots of confidence.
Just think of ANY male celebrity, or any really wealthy man, that does NOT attract any women.
Even Bill Gates was extremely attractive to young teenagers, and probably still is. Is it because of his face? Of course not.
Jack Nicholson also, even after his face started looking like some kind of explosion height map, remained very popular among women.
If women were attracted to a man's face, this could not have happened. There are zillions of couples, where the man's face makes bulldogs vomit, while the woman is pretty, young, and has a really nice body and face.
This could never happen if women's sexuality cared about men's looks. It doesn't.
Women can appreciate a good-looking man, like they would appreciate a nice view or a great work of art - but they will only get aroused by and attracted to the man, if he has high status in some way.
This is why it's so hard for men to decypher women - how can the woman like Judd, when he's so ugly, over a more handsome man? Well, now you know the reason.