My curiosity about him is IF we can see this thinning--i wonder if he is using topik or concealer and we are not seeing full story? Make sense?
I would think a man at that level of caring about his looks would be using concealer already.
View attachment 58234
View attachment 58235
he is definitely thinning
who cares tho, he is old and anyway will look bald very good
lol imagine trying to cast Joel McHale as the stud in Community pre-transplant
View attachment 58237
evicted from community college for being a suspected peso most likely
lol imagine trying to cast Joel McHale as the stud in Community pre-transplant
View attachment 58237
evicted from community college for being a suspected pedo most likely
There's a large debate as to whether or not modern films are declining, it's hard to say as we're biased since we're living in the present. Overall though the box office, as in the set of movies people actually watch, is certainly more homogeneous. Films like 2001, Breakfast at Tiffany's, or the Godfather might be cultural blips if they can out now.
There are some good independent films, smaller films, etc that are made but most people don't hear about them. When they do, it's often for fraudulent independent films such as the documentary what the health. Luckily I'm in a film group locally and I got to see a few good films lately. There's also an independent friendly theatre close to my house.
It may also be a reflection of the audience that we prefer visual candy like Jurassic World over genuine narrative.
Back to your original point. Often when I hear people say that "they really like the character" in a film context, I often "good looking white person looking like they're having fun."
One exception is Jennifer Lawrence. She's hot yes, she's also a terrific actress.
As for females, it's harder to judge because the talent is even more rare beacause of focus on looks. I know Kristen Stewart was the focal point of a (small) debate on here recently regarding her attractiveness or sexyness, but her talent for acting is clear imo. Other female actresses with good ability imo are Emilia Clarke and Emma Stone(may be subjective here).
Lastly, I must add the never-over supposed future of filmography in the flesh of Heath Ledger. He was really something else. Interestingly, also (eventually)doomed to a life without hair.
Sylvester Stallone paved his own way. No one really handed him anything easily. He is multi talented he wrote directed and produced Rocky. It was NOT expected to be a hit.
It's not that looks are more or less important to audiences, its that the studios stopped letting directors run the show. If you look at the 'lookism' of realy old Hollywood films looks ere just as important then as today just different criteria because Studios ran the shows.
in 70s until early 80s Directors ran their own shows...without interference just unending $$$..Until Micheal Cimeno kind of fucked it up for everyone else and studios started to reign sh*t back in.
Most directors don't care that much about looks they care about being photogenic--which is not the same thing (well for men at least, women this is different story to a degree)...its studios that are about looks and all the other stuff that comes with it. And now perhaps the younger audiences, not sure.
About the visual over narrative comment; Maybe the latest great achievement in form of the blockbuster Ape-movie is excatly because it was relieved of the must-have aestetic movie-carrying protagonist? Anyway, what a great movie it was. I really enjoyed the irony, the symbolism, the unspoken communication, the narrative, the humour....ah it will become classic.
About those exceptions..and some more about young-ish, male, actors who are the future: Ryan Gosling is for me a very good actor, even if he's played mostly same characters, but either way he's so easy to believe and so concincing. I really respect James McAvoy, arguably the most unorthodox young actor today. Other that come to mind are Joseph Gordon-Levitt who is just amazing in some roles and of course the very eccentric Jesse Eisenberg. None of them are top-tier in terms of looks, but are nonetheless more exiting to look and easier to identify with (for me). Certainly there are other who I have forgot to mention and it pobably is not fair for them, but I simply cannot remember ^^
As for females, it's harder to judge because the talent is even more rare beacause of focus on looks. I know Kristen Stewart was the focal point of a (small) debate on here recently regarding her attractiveness or sexyness, but her talent for acting is clear imo. Other female actresses with good ability imo are Emilia Clarke and Emma Stone(may be subjective here).
Lastly, I must add the never-over supposed future of filmography in the flesh of Heath Ledger. He was really something else. Interestingly, also (eventually)doomed to a life without hair.
Yea, I knew about Stallone. Actually that's excatly why I had him for an example. So multi talented... but who, I mean really, who would have invested in his project with the ultimatum being he's the leading role in the film. Can you imagine that with his looks from that time? And it was a respectable amount of money back in the day... Maybe he would have made it anyway, I'm not saying, but it would be harder for him in so many ways...
Great choices man. You and I have similar tastes.
A lot of people dismissed Kristen Stewart after the Twilight movies, they said that she had no personality in those movies. My response then, as now, is that she was playing the role of Bella. Bella doesn't have a strong personality.
Having seen Clouds of Sils Maria and Personal Shopper, I now know that I was right about Stewart. She's an excellent actress. By the way both those movies are delightful.
Anton Yelchin is one of the celebrity deaths of last year that most shook me, probably the most actually. He died so young. He was a tremendous talent himself, though given his looks and indeed his receding hairline, he was never going to be a leading man. On a film site I participate in, one of the smartest people there, somebody who works in the industry, described Yelchin as one of the rare young actors more interested in acting than modelling.
****
Planet of the Apes and Interstellar are two movies that use CGI to actually enhance the narrative, as opposed to just wowing the audience. Gravity is another example. In those cases I'm not critical, as the story is coming first.
I know a lot of film investors and a ton of independent film makers.
Its not hard to get funding for a film as you would think
Its more about distributing after its made..this has changed over past 20 years but that was/is the challenge especially back in 70s
here is his production costs and who was involved (thought he directed but someone else did--but I am sure he 'co' directed at least even if not credited as such.)
United Artists liked Stallone's script, and viewed it as a possible vehicle for a well-established star such as Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal, Burt Reynolds, or James Caan.[9] Stallone appealed to the producers to be given a chance to star in the film. He later said that he would never have forgiven himself if the film became a success with someone else in the lead. He also knew that producers Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff's contract with the studio enabled them to "greenlight" a project if the budget was kept low enough. The producers also collateralized any possible losses with their big-budget entry, New York, New York (whose eventual losses were ironically covered by Rocky's success).[10][11] The film's production budget ended up being $1,075,000, with a further $100,000 spent on producers' fees and $4.2 million on advertising costs.[12]
Oh,
I noticed too! Hey, Personal Shopper is one mind-boggling movie. Her performance is nothing short of fantastic. What do you think of Stephen Amell's ability to act? I'm not convinced tbh...
See my edit about Natalie Portman
Yea, I knew about Stallone. Actually that's excatly why I had him for an example. So multi talented... but who, I mean really, who would have invested in his project with the ultimatum being he's the leading role in the film. Can you imagine that with his looks from that time? And it was a respectable amount of money back in the day... Maybe he would have made it anyway, I'm not saying, but it would be harder for him in so many ways...
Adjusted for inflation? Anyways, back in the day as you said, the rules of the game were quite different, and it was the expectations of the public which was very different in terms of aestetics.
I always thought he was wearing a hair piece.
I don't think a hair transplant can produce such density.
View attachment 58240
Yep, hair piece. Confirmed by my baldcel father.