Would Tom Hanks get work today?

[Lotster]

Ok, strictly a film question more than telly, but just stumbled across and old fave (Turner and Hooch) and half watching it whilst playing with sprogs... I used to love this film when I was younger (except the bit where he grapples on the floor with the dog in his tiny black pants, legs akimbo...), along with "Big", "Philadelphia", "Sleepless in Seattle" etc etc.

TH (or his leading ladies) wouldn't have got the roles they did today as they just weren't pretty enough for the now brutally perfectionst Hollywood. Which would be a shame as not only is he very talented, the films would have lost a lot of their charm.

I think it's a shame that as the heartthrob factor has gone up and up, the talent seems to have taken a back seat. I don't see the Zac Efron's of the film world prevailing long enough to get roles like Hanks' in "Charlie Wilson's War"..

Who else wouldn't get work in their original movies today because they weren't pretty enough? Tom Cruise would probably have been ok, but Keifer Sutherland? Dustin Hoffman?

I really want to disagree with you, but I'm now sat here and can't picture any non-pretty young actors

@ you implying that Mr Efron isn't hired for his incredible acting talent

Russell Crowe?

Surely there are non-pretty talented actors around? le Beouf could never be considered pretty and he's getting loads of work considering his age. Toby Maguire is also a huge star who is pretty geeky looking.

Those two are just off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could come up with a few more if wanted.

Sorry, first link was crap, it should have been Shia le Beouf

Hmmm, Toby Maguire is a fair example.

But non pretty actors are few and far between compared to the pins up we made do with in the eighties I still think.

Talent was definately more important then. TBH it's probably worse for female actors. In those days Jennifer Gray could star in Dirty Dancing - she'd never have got the role now! And Glenn Close would fall the wrong side of age and looks requirements if they were casting for Fatal Attraction now I think..

Ok so if Sleepless in Seattle was casting now who would get the parts? And how would Ton Hanks and Meg Ryan fair against them?

hmm you have a point

Meg Ryan was cast for her looks surely. She can't act for toffee and has the world's most irritating voice, so there's only her cuteness left to explain her popularity.

Right then, non-gorgous women actors. I like a challenge.

How about Anne Hathaway, not ugly by any means but not a Barbie-a-like either.

Julia Stiles is also slightly off-beat.

Hilary Swank is gorgeous by normal standards but quite boyish by Hollywood standards.

Reese Witherspoon is gorgous, but not effortlessly so. She is quite square-faced and heavy-jawed, I think the bulk of her attractiveness is in the expressiveness (sp) of her face.

To the men I would like to add Owen Wilson who is sexy but not conventionally good looking. Although he probably doesn't count as a young actor as he's about 40.

I must admit a bit of a crush on Owen Wilson Bran - I lurve tall, funny men with big noses!

I see your point about the women you mention, but they are all still quite fanciable. Still think the Jennifer Grays, Molly Ringwalds, Meryl Streeps, Keifer Sutherlands and Tom Hanks' of the world wouldn't get the same parts today..

I'm not saying there weren't hot actors, take Demi Moore or Rob Lowe, and nowadays we still have plenty of funny, quirky looking actors but not so much in lead roles.

John Travolta came back as delish as ever. and he isnt what Hollywood would consieder a "Brad Pitt" is he?
Those 80s films were shite in the 80s, those 80s actors are just so disposable arent they!