From: invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com   
      
   [Default] Thus spake Starkiller™ :   
      
   >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.   
      
   Part of it is that he (or the costumer) knows how to wear the suit.   
   Especially the slacks.  Men wore them much higher than we do now (I'm   
   saying men rather than boys).   
      
   Actually, men (and hence, actors) were much more slender "way back   
   then."  The difference is that most actors who would try to pull off a   
   role like this are too pumped.  Hell, I saw a picture of Daniel   
   Radliffe today and old Harry must have drunk some sort of potion (or   
   maybe shot it?)  Sucker has some pretty good looking guns for a dude   
   who claims to not even walk on the same side of the street as a gym.   
      
   >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.   
      
   How so?  Do you think that we have really evolved like that in 60-70   
   years?   
   --   
      
   - dillon  I am not invalid   
      
   Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)   
   March 1998 - June 2010   
   What a dog.  What a dog!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)