Based on how she's described, Stone's character should have been played by an actress who was more 'plain'. Emma Stone is gorgeous, one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood, and she was just way too cute to believably play someone who had difficulty getting dates. Loved her in this, though.
Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career.
Emma is effective as the protagonist, but -- like you say -- she's too good-looking for the role since it calls for a woman in her early 20s who's never been asked out on a date. Why sure!
shareEmma Stone is the absolute embodiment of plain.
shareYou are right, but if you were to cast a plain looking actor, no one would pay to watch the movie. That's why they say that there's real ugly and movie ugly. The latter not being ugly at all!
shareStone is pretty but not drop-dead gorgeous, if the opinion of someone who isn't a straight man matters on that front.
But in this role, she has an "I'm not interested in you, or sex" aura that's a sure-fire man repellent, especially as she's surrounded by hyper-feminine husband-hunters who are putting all of their energy into attracting Mr. Right (and a few Mr. Okays in case she needs a spare). That's how things were for small-town women in the middle of the 20th century, or at least for those who settled down and stayed in the small towns.
Bingo
shareIt often happens that way. Another notorious example would be Sissy Spacek as Carrie.
It's for the simple fact that pretty faces sell more tickets. That matters less when it's a book and you're picturing it all in your own head anyway.