It doesn't make sense to me to be honest. I know the casting directors like to cast good looking actors, but come on, we need to be a little realistic.
Ian's not that bad. He's not George Clooney but he is pleasant enough looking. Don't forget his mother was very good looking as was Cindy so not unbelievable his kids should be attractive.
Cindy Junior is the real beauty of course but both her parents were very handsome.
Ian was good looking in his youth and Cindy was too. Also kids are always better looking than their parents.
Exactly. I actually think Ian was quite attractive in his twenties and early thirties. It was more his personality that put people off rather than the looks.
Also, peter is handsome but a lot of it is the body which can be worked on in the Gym rather than relying on what God gave you.
Bit harsh! Ian's mother was a beauty and so was Cindy.
Surely they would have some of Ian's attributes (obviously they are characters, but genetics are taken into mind when casting, right?). Peter and Lucy look very convincing as twins and Cindy looks very convincing as their mother, but you look at Ian and I just wonder if Cindy was having an affair! :D
Bobby on the other hand... well, I think he was swapped at birth.
Surely they would have some of Ian's attributes (obviously they are characters, but genetics are taken into mind when casting, right?). Peter and Lucy look very convincing as twins and Cindy looks very convincing as their mother, but you look at Ian and I just wonder if Cindy was having an affair! :D
Bobby on the other hand... well, I think he was swapped at birth.
I agree and I think he's improved with age as a lot of men do - I'm close to him in age so I can say that LOL
Yes i'm also close to him in age and always thought he was a perfectly attractive boy then man in a 'normal' way. He's not 'sharp intake of breath' handsome which arguably David was but better than average. C+ or B- shall we say.
I think the other thing is Adam is willing to really use his face to convey emotions and people don't tend to look their best then.
Ian's not that bad. He's not George Clooney but he is pleasant enough looking. Don't forget his mother was very good looking as was Cindy so not unbelievable his kids should be attractive.
Cindy Junior is the real beauty of course but both her parents were very handsome.
Yeah, she's extremely striking when she's all done up. She looked absolutely beautiful in the Brutal truths episode. It'll be interesting to see what she looks like when she reaches her twenties.
I watched the first episode on the red button and I thought he looked sort of cute in a geeky way. With an attractive wife I don't think it would be unrealistic for him to have good looking children.
The implausible one is Shirley producing a son as beautiful as Dean.
I agree that Cindy will be an absolute knock out when she's a little older.
I watched the first episode on the red button and I thought he looked sort of cute in a geeky way. With an attractive wife I don't think it would be unrealistic for him to have good looking children.
The implausible one is Shirley producing a son as beautiful as Dean.
I agree that Cindy will be an absolute knock out when she's a little older.
I always said that the men shirley had her kids with must have been real lookers as Mick, Carly and especially Dean are all well above average lookswise.
That said, Shirley is actually quite good looking, just also hard looking and Carly certainly has the same type of looks. Carly is in many ways a much prettier version of Shirley, they are believable as mother dna daughter I think.
ETA - i remember my Mum commenting that Nancy was quite good casting for Shirley's niece as well - again a better looking version of a similar 'type'.
Also kids are always better looking than their parents.
Not true at all, you can't really make such a blanket statement. Some are, some aren't. One of the least physically attractive people I know (who is a lovely and terrific person in many other ways) had incredibly good looking parents, for example.
Not true at all, you can't really make such a blanket statement. Some are, some aren't. One of the least physically attractive people I know (who is a lovely and terrific person in many other ways) had incredibly good looking parents, for example.
Of course you can't make blanket statements and it is possibly becoming less true as decades wear on.
However, i do think that social aspects like improved diets, access to good dentistry, make up products, even well fitting clothes does mean that younger people can make the best of themselves.
As i say, not sure it would make a difference to people of Ian and Peter's generations but those a generation above me (born in 30s and brought up during the War and rationing) or older just didn't have access to a lot of things we take for granted now so couldn't improve on their 'raw materials'. .
Comments
Cindy Junior is the real beauty of course but both her parents were very handsome.
Exactly. I actually think Ian was quite attractive in his twenties and early thirties. It was more his personality that put people off rather than the looks.
Also, peter is handsome but a lot of it is the body which can be worked on in the Gym rather than relying on what God gave you.
Besides Cindy Sr was a good looking woman so perhaps from a fictional perspective the Beale kids inherited her looks.
Also, their grandma Kathy from Ian's side is quite attractive.
Surely they would have some of Ian's attributes (obviously they are characters, but genetics are taken into mind when casting, right?). Peter and Lucy look very convincing as twins and Cindy looks very convincing as their mother, but you look at Ian and I just wonder if Cindy was having an affair!
Bobby on the other hand... well, I think he was swapped at birth.
i could imagine her having a son like that sexy ****er peter
Its more realistic than the Branning brothers!
I agree with this.
I agree and I think he's improved with age as a lot of men do - I'm close to him in age so I can say that LOL
Yes me too.
He's carrying some weight as he's got older but basically he is not an ugly man.
It is, as i say, more ian's personality that is meant to put people off than his looks.
Yes i'm also close to him in age and always thought he was a perfectly attractive boy then man in a 'normal' way. He's not 'sharp intake of breath' handsome which arguably David was but better than average. C+ or B- shall we say.
I think the other thing is Adam is willing to really use his face to convey emotions and people don't tend to look their best then.
Yeah, she's extremely striking when she's all done up. She looked absolutely beautiful in the Brutal truths episode. It'll be interesting to see what she looks like when she reaches her twenties.
The implausible one is Shirley producing a son as beautiful as Dean.
I agree that Cindy will be an absolute knock out when she's a little older.
I always said that the men shirley had her kids with must have been real lookers as Mick, Carly and especially Dean are all well above average lookswise.
That said, Shirley is actually quite good looking, just also hard looking and Carly certainly has the same type of looks. Carly is in many ways a much prettier version of Shirley, they are believable as mother dna daughter I think.
ETA - i remember my Mum commenting that Nancy was quite good casting for Shirley's niece as well - again a better looking version of a similar 'type'.
No they are not. My parants are much better looking than me, I'm ugly!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Beale_1985.jpg
That younger Ian Beale has a close resemblance to the old Peter Thomas Law
Not true at all, you can't really make such a blanket statement. Some are, some aren't. One of the least physically attractive people I know (who is a lovely and terrific person in many other ways) had incredibly good looking parents, for example.
Of course you can't make blanket statements and it is possibly becoming less true as decades wear on.
However, i do think that social aspects like improved diets, access to good dentistry, make up products, even well fitting clothes does mean that younger people can make the best of themselves.
As i say, not sure it would make a difference to people of Ian and Peter's generations but those a generation above me (born in 30s and brought up during the War and rationing) or older just didn't have access to a lot of things we take for granted now so couldn't improve on their 'raw materials'. .