Lea Thompson is NOT attractive - Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) Discussion

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Filby 20 years ago

I thought that Eric Stoltz and Mary Stuart Masterson were fairly convincing as high schoolers... but you're right, Lea Thompson and (especially) Craig Sheffer and Molly Hagan and were kind of unbelievable.

Despite my appearance at this function, I am, and shall remain, a duckman.

reply

[–] phildotpot 20 years ago

No, she is not attractive, she is extremely HOT! Especially in BTTF, in that peach "Fish under the Sea Dance" dress!

reply

[–] wyleneh_mother 17 years ago

I agree, but let's remember the brilliance of "Grease" the blockbuster
movie with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. John was 24, Olivia
almost thirty, Rizzo-33, Kinicky-twenty something and we all (in that
generation and even kids today LOVE that movie-did we even care how
old they really were? Frankly, I'd go see a remake with the same
people playing the parts at their current ages today!!!!!

reply

[–] texasturkey 16 years ago

Olivia Newton John was 34 when she played Sandy in Grease. She was 10 years older than John Travolta who was 24 at the time.

reply

[–] roodlemania 16 years ago

Molly Hagan looks about 45 in this movie

reply

[–] goldriverrat 20 years ago

Apparently, Lea Thompson agrees. In the production handbook for SKOW, she is quoted: "I felt too many things were dependent on her [Amanda] physical beauty and I didn't feel I was beautiful enough to carry that off. Thus I felt my character should have more inner beauty."

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] raiden1969 20 years ago

Without a doubt! Kind of silly him pining after some lanky plain jane when he has this totally cute girl right under his nose. The most ridiculous scene - in the locker room she is looking at Lea Thompson's body and comparing in disappointment. Come on - MSM has got curves in all the right places.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LisaLisa85 17 years ago

"Without a doubt! Kind of silly him pining after some lanky plain jane when he has this totally cute girl right under his nose. The most ridiculous scene - in the locker room she is looking at Lea Thompson's body and comparing in disappointment. Come on - MSM has got curves in all the right places. "

Actually that sorta thing happens more often than people may realise - one falls for someone else who would never give them a second glance, unaware that they have a devoted torch-carrier under their nose who can't seem to reach them

reply

[–] TMC-4 (19418) 6 years ago

https://lebeauleblog.com/2014/07/15/what-the-hell-happened-to-lea-thompson/6/

After Ringwald passed on the role of Amanda Jones, it was offered to Thompson. Originally, Thompson turned the part down. She was 26 and like Ringwald she was trying to get away from playing teenagers. But after Howard the Duck flopped, Thompson reconsidered. According to Thompson:

“I never would’ve done it if it hadn’t been for Howard The Duck. I’d actually turned it down. And then when Howard The Duck was such a bomb, that weekend, Eric Stoltz came and said, “Howard Deutch wants to offer you this movie again.” I’d already turned it down, and I was like, “I’d better take it.” I just kept hearing this voice going, ‘Get back on the horse!’ I was so devastated.”

The decision changed more than Thompson’s career. She and Deutch fell in love. They were married a couple of years later.

Some Kind of Wonderful opened to mostly positive reviews although many critics complained that it was derivative of Hughes’ previous works. Despite the decent reviews, the movie was a box office dud. It opened at number 6 and quickly fell out of the top ten. It ended up grossing less than half of what Pretty in Pink earned in 1986. Since then, the movie has developed a cult following.

reply

[–] mljdjl26 20 years ago

The last poster (filmfan) made an excellent point. What you think is attractive is all relative. It can change from year to year (and does in society...remember we used to think scarecrow Kate Moss was the height of beauty). It's sad to hear that Lea didn't think she was beautiful enough for the role (and I for one don't agree with poster who started this thread, needless to say), I always thought she was very pretty (and Mary Stuart, as well). But, then I just heard an ad on TV recently for some special where Jamie Lee Curtis was talking about herself as a teen/young adult and she said the same thing "I was cute, I was never beautiful," and I found that heartbreaking that she felt that way. I think everyone I've mentioned is beautiful and it's too bad that they don't see it themselves, but such is Hollyweird and society in general in deciding what is and isn't attractive. I say it's all in the eye of the beholder. Nuff said.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] huntzrockerreds 18 years ago

Lea is attractive but not even in the same league as MSM,who a former co-worker of mine described as "the prettiest girl I've ever seen".I'm not sure I concur with that judgement but he's probably not too far off.

reply

[–] ayanami-rei 17 years ago

I've always had a crush on Lea, but her character (and her hair!) really turned me off in this film. That just proves that she can act, however, if it's enough to make someone that is normally quite attractive really unappealing.
Between the two actresses, it's a toss-up for me, but if I lived in the "universe" of this story, it'd be Mary Stuart every time. I've always longed for a Watts of my own...

Hooray for tomboys!

"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" - Dorothy Gale

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] donuteater 17 years ago

I think Lea was one of the most attractive female actresses in the 80's.SKOW is one of the best film in it's kind.Mary Stuart Masterson is my favorite tough!

reply

[–] lanemyer85 17 years ago

Frankly I'm amazed anyone thinks Lea Thompson isn't attractive. From the 80's Lea Thompson and Sherilyn Fenn(more known for Twin Peaks) are 1 & 2 in my book. Winona Ryder would be up there for Heathers and Beetlejuice but she's more of a 90's actress. Masterson is sorta cute but not in either of these ladies' league. Thompson is a classically trained dancer, ie dancer's body, little to no body fat(check out All the Right Moves--she's cut) and adorably cute face. Lea may not be in the "hot" class of a girl with sheer sex appeal like Angelina Jolie but she also wouldn't have the emotional baggage, an IQ under room temperature, and ugly ass white trash tattoo's that Jolie has either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I also make distinctions between a girl that is "hot"(Phoebe Cates), "cute"(Lea Thompson) and "pretty"(Daryl Hannah). Lea Thompson would be the adorably cute girl next door type and that's why she was cast in Back to the Future. In regard to the previous poster who mentioned that Lea didn't feel she could pull off the part of Amanda Jones because she wasn't "beautiful" enough, that's partly because she's not an egomanic..she's a quiet mid-western girl, and partially because she really doesn't fit the typical profile of a girl with sheer sex appeal that you would normally expect from that role. Think Carolyn from Hughes' Sixteen Candles. It would seem John Hughes wasn't as wrapped up in these stereotypical qualities because he based 2 movies around a very average looking(in Hollywood terms) Molly Ringwald. You can also say that about a lot of 80's movies. Look at the girls who were the central female gets boy characters. From the diminuative Diane Franklin in Better off Dead, Annabeth Gish from Hiding Out, Deb Foreman from Valley Girl, Ally Sheedy in Breakfast Club & St.Elmo's Fire, the aforementioned Molly Ringwald, E.Shue from Karate Kid etc. I'm not sure I would put any of these women in regard to being hot. They're all attractive but not necessarily in typical shallow Hollywood terms. These movies buried the supporting roles played by other actresses, Gina Gershon, S.Fenn, K.Swanson, that many people would classify as hot. It's all relative and I'm disappointed in myself for even posting such a lengthy post to something so meaningless.

reply

[–] lanemyer85 17 years ago

Oh and for the original post on the main actors/actresses being too old, you're right. Scheffer was the most unbelievable in my book. He was 26 when this movie filmed and looked 30. Lea and Stoltz although 24-25 at the time could pull it off a little better since they both have baby faces. Masterson was 20 and completely believable.

reply

[–] jayhn1111 17 years ago

Lea Thompson looked much much better in the movie "wild Life".

reply

[–] stareyes24 17 years ago

Even though I thought that Lea Thompson did a good job in this film, I thought that Keri Green or even Mia Sara would have been better for the role of Amanda Jones. Keri Green had that long red hair and she seemed like the quintestenial dream girl in such movies as "Lucas" and "The Goonies". Also, Mia Sara would have been great as Amanda Jones as well. Both girls had a vulernability to them.

reply

[–] LisaLisa85 17 years ago

I thought Lea Thompson was very attractive in the original Back To The Future film... Not so much in SKoW, though

reply

[–] mm_filip 17 years ago

I also agree that Lea Thomson is not attractive but I love 80's movies so I guess I have to endure watching her. There are zillions of beautiful women out there but now and then a Cinderella like this appears and is marketed as being gorgeous.

reply

[–] PrincessBoy 17 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] honeypeach 17 years ago

I don't think Lea Thompson is unattractive, but it did seem strange to me while I was watching the movie that Mary Stuart Masterson was more conventionally beautiful (maybe not as far as her fashion sense, but facially) than her, yet Stoltz was pining over the "less pretty" (in my opinion) one.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Just_Kimmie 13 years ago

Dead on right about Stoltz. He was gorgeous in this - way, way, way better looking that Craig Sheffer, who was all attitude and confidence, not a terribly good lookin' guy.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blackchineygal 16 years ago

I agree she really wasn't cute at all. She had weird dimples.

reply

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

I didn't find her that hot either but let's not forget that this was the 80's. Her hairstyle and so on may seem boring to us but back then ...
Also, I bet her attractivesness will also be due partly to the fact the she is from upper class with more money. AND, I guess the director didn't want her to be the typical über-hot-but-shallow-looking chick because in the end of the movie she turns out to quite a nice person. Considering that she was nicely cast, imho. It just doesn't explain Keith was so fond of her in the first place. Then again, later in the movie he admitted that he mainly wanted to date explicitly her to pay off all the bullies, cool guys and others that did make fun of him in the past. So - once again, I do think it was a good cast.

Despite of that, I would have taken Watts any day over Amanda, Mr Masterson was so great in this role, I loved her character to an extent that one could say I had a crush on her ...

reply

[–] bcoin 16 years ago

I never thought Lea was extremely beautiful but there was always something about her I found very attractive. And as for the poster that mentioned her weird dimples, I thought they made her even more attractive!

reply

[–] gwynne41008 16 years ago

THE CHARACTER OF AMANDA WAS NOT WEALTHY AT ALL. SHE LIVED AROUND THE CORNER FROM KEITH AND MENTIONED MANY TIMES BEING EMBARRASSED ABOUT WHERE SHE LIVED AND STUFF. SHE EVEN BORROWED DIAMOND EARRINGS FROM HER FRIEND WHICH IS WHY KEITH BOUGHT HER A PAIR.

reply

[–] splendidSheSaid 16 years ago

Howard Deutch thought Lea Thompson was attractive.While i liked both girls i was always wanting a Watts of my own.It didn't happen.

reply

[–] Can_a_bitch_get_a_donut 16 years ago

FALSE.

Kara Thrace will lead the human race to its end.

reply

[–] jmac-20 16 years ago

The money/social status thing is probably a big part of it - going out with her is symbolic more than anything else.

As a real world example, some might look at Paris Hilton.

To some, she's attractive, to others she's not in teh least, and those who see her in such light might suggest that were it not for the lifestyle her money (and the resulting social network it leads to) provided, if someone saw a person in the street with similar looks, they'd not be attracted to her in the slightest.

Such topics were certainly part of the theme of a bunch of 80s teen movies.

On the ageing thing - I saw an episode of 'welcome back kotter' recently (just the one, I swear) where a new student was being introduced, and they said she was in her teens. She looked to have been in her thirties (massive crows feet around the eyes when smiling) - or at the very lest late 20s but sun damaged skin or something.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]