My point was just that I think it's entirely possible for one group to find him attractive and one group to find him not and for both groups to be telling the truth (and not just doing it to piss off the other group).
Also that it wasn't one person versus "everyone else."
Apparently, my self-ban from this thread lastly a brief period of time.
To be clear, I don't care if anyone finds Andrew Rannells talented or good looking.
I do find it a little gross to refuse to call the actor by his name and insinuate that he got the role in MORMON by sucking the director's dick. That...is ugly.
"I would like it if the Rannell's character could make a face that acknowledges he's being ridiculous when he reveals his preference for an underweight baby. I'd like it if a person who acknowledges his own failures gets righteous at a bigot like the guy in the store."
Absolutely, and that would make a big difference to me. Unfortunately, that's not the way Murphy likes to play that kinda humour, as Strummer pointed out, he doesn't help stage actors tone down their reactions--he seems to love that. (And it has gotten worse--one thing that helped make Nip/Tuck work, early on anyway, was the acting even at the most ridiculous and over the top scenario--the show lost it and even the actors spoke out about how horrible they found their material, but...)
As for if Rannells' looks. I find him attractive (less so when playing this role, I admit), but I think it's fair to call him kinda odd looking. He doesn't have the typical, (often bland) leading man look (think someone like Brandon Routh--playing gay in that other gay sitcom coming out, Partners). Which makes him more interesting looking and--to me--more attractive due to that.