Something that struck me over the weekend while finishing up Season 2 of Stargate SG-1.
It was irritating me the number of times people called Sam "beautiful". Yes, she's quite pretty. But the character is more than that.
And that's when it hit me...I don't care how beautiful and actress is, how beautiful the character is, if you can't make me believe that they are more than just beauty, then beauty can't carry them.
Amanda Tapping can act. She can also act smart. You buy what she's saying. Her personality tends to rule the character, not the way she looks. Allison Mack is another actress who operates that way. She's very attractive, but it's the personality she projects onto the character that makes you connect, not her appearance.
Jennifer Garner? Another example.
I can make a list of actresses who make me believe their characters are beautiful, regardless of what they look like, or in spite of what they look like (if they really are attractive). Yes, beauty comes from the inside, but it's more than that. LIFE comes from the inside. Humanity comes from the inside. A three-dimensional quality, some intangible that must exist for believability to exist, is necessary for a character to really connect in a believable way. That's a skill that comes from the actress. The beautiful character can BE the beautiful character, but the actress must portray something extra to make us believe the character as a person and not just a pretty object.
This is why Kristin Kreuk doesn't work for me. She's just a pretty girl. Lana's identity is just a pretty girl. And KK doesn't give us anything more than that, even if she tries. Grand actions and complicated plotlines don't make a character interesting. Mischa Barton has the same problem.
Pretty is a huge issue for me in a TV series, because it's about a long-term, sustainable character, not one that can be slapped on a screen for two hours and that's it.