From: NoSpamSKSSKanz@hotmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:47:42 -0500, Dillon Pyron   
    wrote:   
      
   >[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?   
      
   Actually we have in a way.  Back then the nation wasn't nearly as   
   health conscious.  Smoking was more the norm than not.  nearly   
   everyone had more fat in their diets in a single day than a lot of   
   people do now in a month.  There was very little air conditioning and   
   people worked harder physically to earn a living than now.   
   My own grandparents, having lived through the depression looked much   
   rougher in their 50s than most do in their 60s and 70s now.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)