It doesn’t matter if the ratings of a supernatural TV show with pretty supernatural characters is high or low. It doesn’t matter if the book about the love between a shining pretty vampire and a human girl tops the bestsellers list or is published into oblivion.

If the said creatures were formerly written as ugly, weird and vicious at one point, there’ll always be people complaining about the beauty of these characters.

If you are lucky and have hooked your audience with your actors, stories and characters, the vamps looking gorgeous won’t be a problem. True Blood (yeah, yeah they show teeth but Billy and Eric aren’t your average-looking guys, let’s be fair.) and The Vampire Diaries managed to bypass the problem. While watchers, fans and haters critique the hell out of the show (Vampire Diaries), they’re concerned with plot points, and not beauty issues. They’ve accepted the fact that the cast members look like they have sprung from a fashion catalogue. They can act, and they fit their roles.

So whether I like the episodes of a certain supernatural show/movie or not, it feels refreshing when the criticism focuses on plot, and not looks.

As much criticism as Stephenie Meyer faced about the quality of her writing, people were a lot more passionate about the “shining” vampires. How dare she make a vampire not burn in the sun? Frankly, I embrace vampires who don’t burn in the sun. It’s refreshing. As a 29-year-old entertainment addict, I’ve seen enough ugly-ass vampires who couldn’t go out in the light.

Dracula (starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers) series got its fair share of the complaints, and Star-Crossed series discussion boards are filled with people comparing it to Twilight. Yeah because why should other writers explore a love story between a supernatural creature and a human? And how could a writer allow himself to envision an alien without disgusting features? Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

Man, writers can’t catch a break. We sweat and bleed to get our work sold. And if we’ve managed to sell it to TV, have it made into a pilot and have that pilot picked by a network, we then have to struggle week after week to not just create an enticing story, but to try to create an enticing story that will bring high ratings.

As viewers, I get “we” don’t care about the writer’s (hard) work. We demand compelling, fun work. Fair enough. There might be writers out there who give in to the popularity of a certain (sub-)genre, but in general, writers write from heart, mind and soul. I know I do.

One writer depicts vampires are sparkly creatures, one with ridiculous fangs, one with a made-up ugly face (Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel, anyone?).

One writer can make a serial-killing psychotic couple protagonists (Natural Born Killers), and one can choose to make a hitman protect a 12-year-old  at all costs (you know this one too well).

I don’t care if a vampire looks horrendous or gorgeous. I don’t care if an alien is a green reptile or birth-marked teen or just a regular-looking human with special powers. Do I care for the story? Am I invested in what they do? That’s all that matters.

So yeah, as a writer, I’m completely on the writers’ side.  Yes, it helps that I don’t mind attractive characters. You can go all the way to my childhood and blame it on my parents for taking me to see Dirty Dancing at the age of 3. When you introduce Patrick Swayze to a girl, it’s unsurprising she’ll grow up to have a thing for good-hearted rebellious hunks (and romance and dancing). Don’t almost all the male protagonists of mentioned shows/films/books fit this criteria?

But my tendencies aside, this is the writer’s child. Their story. Yes, they want to be read/watched and admired. But from idea inception to the end product, it’s the writer’s baby. It’s her choice if she wants to go with Bram Stoker’s baby-eating dracula, or she wants to make him a tortured, a handsome, revenge- warrior like the series (Dracula).

It’s their choice if they just want a show on vampires, or if they want to add all sorts of creatures we have never heard of (Supernatural introduced some bizarre stuff). And despite being created by a guy, the two human leads of Supernatural are not exactly ugly. (Yes, major understatement here.)

A Note on The Cast Ages:

Of course the other famous complaint is the casting of “older” actors as high school peers, but I for one can speak for myself: they are possibly doing it for the “older” crowd like me. I like romance and supernatural stuff. But I don’t write YA, and I don’t particularly seek to watch/read YA. So what can you do to make it more appealing? You cast actors aged 20-30 so we get to be “attracted” to the leading character. I see the logic, since at 29, I find Dylan McDermott way more appealing than, let’s say, Taylor Lautner. OK, I find Dylan McDermott more appealing than a lot of people, but that’s another issue.

I don’t watch shows because they are set in high school. I watch them despite of that.

Besides, actors playing younger characters is such an old tradition. Michael J. Fox was born in 1962, so in the first Back to the Future film, he was 23. Grease is a favorite across generations, with high school students Olivia Newton-John being 29 and John Travolta 24. Would you even consider replacing them with actors at the “right” age? I wouldn’t dream of it.

*

What’s your take on pretty creatures and “older” casting?