>>3958629Even if you don't find Pedro Pascal pretty, he's far from ugly.
People would kill for the looks of some of the people anon named, it's a pretty weird standard that by pure logic would render 99% of the population Medusa hideous
>>3958631>Those examples are the reason other original properties entered the conversation at allNo, I think it was the examples in
>>3958421, in which someone brought up "the ugly main leads in recent":
>Disney and Marvel films>HBO series>Netflix series/films>a myriad of Amazon productions>Rings of Power>Good Omens>Our Flag Means Death>Interview With A VampireI presume you mean the new one
>Gladiator II/Pedro Pascal,>Saltburn/Barry Keoghan To name
>just a fewYour take that the conversation is restricted to just fanart is just bald-faced revisionism.
You were the one who brought out these "few" properties and complained about the glorification of ugliness -- and not just in fanart, as you insist the topic be restricted to. If you wanna restrict the topic to just fanart, then just say so
And again, there's a difference between being offended and being confused
And I am confusion. I am triggered
Like, have you ever considered that these standards of beauty are just weird?
Calling plain, normal looking dudes outright ugly is just weird.
And also didn't mention this, but your "then-vs-now" assessment is wrong: you're trying to make it out like "ugliness" (which for normal people is "average looks") is a new problem, but that's provincialist.
While the 90s and 2000s mostly had hotter and prettier men in the leads, the base level of pretty for men in the 10s and 20s remains significantly better than in the 40s-80s. The guys considered "hot" then, minus the occasional James Dean, they're, like, handsome, but they're not, like, angelic the way DiCaprio was.
Like, Leif Garett and Andy Gibb and are very cute, but compare them to irritatingly pretty Troye Sivan, Shawn Mendes, Jungkook, Chalamet, and they're basically orcs
