From: NoSpamSKSSKanz@hotmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:59 -0500, "catpandaddy"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"StarkillerT"  wrote in message   
   >news:runc46pdfjjt3gova4qfumneomva4k9iad@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:40:27 -0500, "catpandaddy"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>"StarkillerT"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:ep7c469mq7nsudpnelv3g4aoa5k8e1idr0@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:34:57 -0600, "Joetheone"   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>"StarkillerT"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:ib1246p2dao9koh886o9gn41ogtpf8pe2s@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's just plain weird to see Gaius Baltar(James Callis) playing a   
   >>>>>> 1940s era American scientist and speaking without the British accent.   
   >>>>>> Which for me make the new episodes even more surreal than they are   
   >>>>>> intended to be.   
   >>>>>> Callis does play his part quite well though.  His accent just barely   
   >>>>>> slips through a few times.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>It ended up being just a bad American accent, almost as bad as Bamber's.   
   >>>>>Wish they would have given him the zoot suit for BSG, though. It's a   
   >>>>>good   
   >>>>>look for him.   
   >>>>>And I think I'm going to enjoy him in this role. Looks like a good   
   >>>>>season   
   >>>>>for Eureka.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Indeed.  A lot of todays younger actors just look like they're wearing   
   >>>> a costume when dressing for a 30s or 40s era role.   
   >>>> Callis' wardrobe person did a good job of making him look like he   
   >>>> belonged in that suit.   
   >>>   
   >>>What is it that makes the difference?  Does a real 40s suit look fake on   
   >>>camera, so that they need a not-quite-authentic version which looks "on   
   >>>film" to be more authentic than the real deal itself?  Like using dry ice   
   >>>because real fog photographs with too smokelike an appearance to be   
   >>>convincing or something like that?   
   >>   
   >> A lot of times it is the fit of the suit.  I've seen a few where the   
   >> suits are kinda baggy as todays male actors are on average more   
   >> slender than their preedecessors back then. The difference is not as   
   >> much the suit itself as far as authenticity goes but how the actor   
   >> wears it and how it fits.   
   >> And then  there are subtle things like Callis has the more defined   
   >> jawline as did a lot of folks in that era whereas a lot of todays   
   >> actors have the more soft rounded off jaw and chinlines.   
   >> Put 32 year old Ashton Kutcher in a suit like that and he looks like a   
   >> kid wearing his dads clothes.   
   >   
   >I follow, kind of.  So it's just that the actors back then were selected for   
   >a very specific typecasting appearance?  I am almost completely certain that   
   >the general population in the 40s were just as likely to have the "wrong"   
   >appearance for the same style of suit, and we just don't have a general   
   >memory of them, except for the actors on film.   
      
   True.  Our perception of the past will always be somewhat tainted by   
   how it has been presented to us.  Unless you have an old family   
   picture album or are a student of history then the films from that era   
   are all anyone has to go by as far as what the average look was.   
   So when attemtping to recreate that era today, we look at the Bogarts,   
   Robinsons and Cagneys as the standards.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)