To those insulting Val's looks
-
PebblesReturns — 14 years ago(July 12, 2011 07:59 AM)
Oh, and I'm sure racroen that you are the essence of perfection without flaw. What does this have to do with his talent as an actor or who the man is? We are a messed up and shallow Country! He's not only a great performer, but from what I've seen a heck of a good man who does not set himself above others because of his fame. Very loving father as well. Let's worry about what matters. I am not privy to this information, but by the looks of him lately I DO suspect the possibility of a health problem making him have difficulties. Look at his face! Yes, he's gained weight, but that is SWELLING going on. I've seen that kind of problem in persons with diabetes, which would also explain weight gain. This is just a hunch.
-
Heatherh1013 — 14 years ago(July 20, 2011 07:38 AM)
I agree. Val has been slowly swelling up for years. You could see the early signs of Cushing's syndrome in his abdomen in certain Top Gun scenes and it continues to progress. He is beginning to have more "moon face" characteristics and has to really be careful to maintain normal cortisol levels. Instead of criticizing him, we should all be praying for him! I know I do.
-
beatbox76 — 14 years ago(July 20, 2011 08:58 AM)
I thought this was the case, but wasn't sure. I suspected he might be affiliated with the Cushing's Syndrome when I saw an interview of his a few months ago on Entertainment Tonight and he was wearing a yellow/blue lapel pin.
It's discouraging that he isnt more vocal about his illness, but I suppose that it's a delicate balancing act with to live with such a horrible disease and be such a public figure. -
lambimacfly — 14 years ago(July 12, 2011 02:46 PM)
Has anyone seen him in BAD LIEUTENANT, STREETS OF BLOOD or DOUBLE IDENTITY? These movies came out in 2010 and I thought that he looked very good in them. Trim and fit. That means that in about one year he gained a lot of weight.
-
baxley — 13 years ago(October 16, 2012 05:38 AM)
I was watching an interv2000iew he gave recently and he said he gained weight for a part. But to put him down is just wrong. He's a human being just like the rest of us. He's putting on age, just like the rest of us. I'd like to see how some of you look when you get into your 50s.
Putting him down does not raise you up. And I am so glad he has not gone the way of the surgeon's knife and I hope he never goes that way.
I am a fan and have been one for a long time and plan on continuing to be one for some time. -
racroen — 14 years ago(July 12, 2011 05:21 PM)
In all seriousness (my first post to this thread was just intended to be funny whether it succeeded or not), I might deplore people saying truly cruel things about another human being myself, although I find it inevitable. Here's why:
- Like it or not, at least half of being an actor maybe more is the look of your "instrument," your body. Kathy Bates and Linda Hunt are enormously talented too, but they aren't going to be getting any roles that, say, Charlize Theron might fill.
Just to add to the unfairness of things, being gorgeous, Theron can go either way with it.
Monster
proved that. You can easily make a gorgeous person look worn out, but it's much harder to take a worn-out looking person and make them gorgeous. - Having been a guy who could pull off playing Jim Morrison, lesser mortals are inevitably going to be jealous. Kilmer is rich, he was handsome (he still looks better than the average schmuck on the street) and he had a youth that nobody writing on this thread can even imagine. People being what they are, that losers would shred Kilmer when he's lookin' kind of rough is a given. Even now, overweight, over the hill and possibly with a medical problem, his life is better than the best theirs will ever be and on some level, they know it.
- If the first two conditions didn't apply, Hollywood-as-we-know-it would not exist. The word "star" would just mean one of those pinpoints of light in the sky; actors would be actors, and that's it. We worship appearances, we have a love/hate relationship with what we perceive to be "royalty" (and everything about our entertainment industry encourages that perception), and we rip people apart and stomp on the bloody pieces when they're down.
It's a sick culture. Don't expect healthy attitudes to come out of it. This is the internet, where people can indulge their basest thoughts and feelings in complete anonymity.
- Like it or not, at least half of being an actor maybe more is the look of your "instrument," your body. Kathy Bates and Linda Hunt are enormously talented too, but they aren't going to be getting any roles that, say, Charlize Theron might fill.
-
zerobeat — 14 years ago(July 14, 2011 08:21 AM)
Wait, I would think that he would have been in an even worse position had he made a 2nd Batman movie - those Schumacher films were some of the worst in the history of the universe. And Schumacher's 2nd one (with Clooney) was even worse than his first one (with Kilmer), so Kilmer dodged an even bigger bullet than he might have expected.
Batman Forever was awful. I don't blame Kilmer for this. But he would have been a complete idiot to trust being in the next one. I'm not sure what Clooney's excuse was, other than money or ignorance (either is OK by me). -
PebblesReturns — 14 years ago(July 15, 2011 04:44 AM)
racroen
I agree with most everything you said. I do not agree that Hollywood has been based on looks. It may be that it's getting that way but it's a sad reaction to that sick world you mentioned that going b68to the crapper. People are becoming more and more shallow and without conviction or morals. I look back to when I was growing up and the HUGE difference in family and values. Children growing up under the care of parents who taught values, morals, and responsibility. Now we have too many parents who can't teach their children these things because they haven't a clue what they are.
Case in point - Go to any store on any given day and you'll see a 13 yr old CHILD dressed like a street walker with tons of makeup and a push up silicone bra in an attempt to flop out what she don't have. Look to the side of her and you will usually see the mom who is an older, worn out version of the daughter and looks either fried on drugs or hungover. These 2 (other than what I already said) can usually be identified by the tons of tats covering their derelict bodies, multiple piercings, and the ever so attractive trailer park attitude and language.
Case in point 2 - We used to all love and admire many many great performers who were loved for their incredible talent and looks had NOTHING to do with it. Look at Lucille Ball in her older years, Jack Benny and more recent talents like Jack Nicholson, I could go on forever here on the amazing talent in performing arts from very physically unattractive men/women. Society has lost it's values so they do not value real talent. When people are going nuts after people like ICarly who have no talent and are an embarrassment to real professional - sad day for real talent. We are losing a dying breed and we have created monsters. Another 20 to 30 yrs the last of the real professionals will be gone so I would suggest everyone enjoy them now and appreciate the talent. When the most popular movies today promote drugs, filth, disrespect, and attitudes you would find at a run down trailer park, that should be scary. -
racroen — 14 years ago(July 15, 2011 05:02 PM)
PebblesReturns:
"I do not agree that Hollywood has been based on looks."
It's always mattered for casting, particularly for women. Margaret Hamilton was not going to get the part of Glenda the Good Witch no matter how talented she was or how much she wanted it. In fact, she almost didn't get the wicked part. One of the Top Suits wanted to cast the beautiful Gale Sondergaard as the Wicked Witch of the West, but it didn't work out and Sondergaard eventually said she didn't want to do it.
It mattered for leading men, too. Humphrey Bogart was an odd exception, but he was born to play noir (anti)heroes. What he lacked in looks and stature, he made up for in attitude.
In comedy it didn't matter so much, but Lucille Ball was always stunning. She just got slightly less stunning as she got older. -
PebblesReturns — 14 years ago(July 15, 2011 09:10 PM)
racroen,
I will agree with you that there has always been a certain amount of vanity and swooning going on in Hollywood and the gal with the Bette Davis eyes get some attention as well as the handsome leading man who saves the day and makes us believe in heros. It is and can be a part of the role. However, if you look at the website "caught without makeup" you will see (if you haven't in person) how much of this is makeup, camera tricks, lighting, etc.they know what they are doing. lol
I still beg to differ though on the ugly actors point. True, as I just stated, there was always a market for that. However, I find it amazing and uplifting that so many famous people were made very famous by sheer ugliness. lol Seriously, their differences and individuality made them stand out and be noticed. Whether its been comedy, drama, romance, it doesn't matter. They shine and make the world a much better place. Most "beauty" in Hollywood is phony and teaching the kids they need to be examples too that they should be phony to be accepted and many young women are literally killing themselves to be perfect and compete with air brushed models and actresses who have an entourage of make up artist following them around. We need to be examples. These kids grow up watching and learning from us. Similar to police officers in our communities. They need to be above reproach because people look up to them and see them as heros. No badge or gun, but same concept applies. If I am going to be in a line of work that puts me in the spotlight as an example children want to follow, I will endeavor to live up to that responsibility.
Check this out - http://1000awesomethings.com/2008/12/02/883-ugly/
ttp://ravivora.com/blog/ugly-actors-you-know-and-love
You have John Wayne, Thelma Ritter, Jimmy Durante, the Rat pack were pretty ugly but one. I have to apologize for having to look some up. No sleep 2 days and mind starting to fade. (smile) Also, it's just my opinion, but Lucille Ball looked so much better in black and white. Looking at some of her roles when in color, I was not impressed whatsoever with her appearance. Point is this, if you ACT like your all that and a bag of freakin chips, they treat you like you are those things. Attitude works in Hollywood but save it for the Producers.
I must add one more thought. I am shocked, but I think I'm starting to think your okay. That's nothing on you, just don't care for most I've seen coming from these boards. -
racroen — 14 years ago(July 16, 2011 06:20 AM)
PebblesReturns:
"if you look at the website 'caught without makeup' you will see (if you haven't in person) how much of this is makeup, camera tricks, lighting, etc.they know what they are doing."
Yes they do. I've been a professional artist for over 30 years, so perhaps I know this better than most, but the makeup artists have to have a good armature to work with or they can do nothing. Bone structure is everything. Blotchy skin and bad hair don't matter. The latter can be fixed, but there's little you can do about the former.
(That is, unless you're talking about lumpy-head aliens like in
Star Trek
; prosthetics can add but they cannot take away.)
If they're cast in leading roles they generally have unusually beautiful "armature." Directors and cinematographers know what to look for. You won't find many exceptions outside of voice acting for animation.
The aforementioned Margaret Hamilton, sweet as she apparently was in real life, did not have beautiful armature, and nothing short of radical maxillofacial surgery could have changed that. It would have wrecked her career too, because that hatchet-face got her work, and even a surgeon could not have made her bone structure pretty enough to compete with, say, Rita Hayworth.
PebblesReturns:
"You have John Wayne, Thelma Ritter, Jimmy Durante, the Rat pack were pretty ugly but one."
You're talking about men or supporting (character) actresses. Like it or not there's a double-standard for men, and if you asked a woman I think she'd say that John Wayne was far from ugly. He looked rugged. Chicks dig that.
With the exception of Sammy Davis Jr., none of the Rat Pack were ugly either and Sammy wasn't ugly until he got his face busted up in a car accident. He was so talented in other ways that it just didn't matter that much (although even his friends made fun of him over it), and he was never a leading man type anyway. Back then, he was the wrong color for that.
I looked at your links, but the people on them were all either character actors or not ugly. Both sites mentioned Christopher Walken. In what universe is he considered ugly? Mike Meyers: not ugly, just fat in that picture. Willem Dafoe: more creepy than ugly. Vincent Schiavelli: literally deformed, and his roles depended on that. Helena Bonham Carter: are they NUTS? Tim Curry: again, are they NUTS? Ron Perlman: strange armature, but fun to augment with prosthetics (he looked better as Vincent the Beast than he does in real life).
They're all either character actors, or the mouth-breathers who picked them for "ugly lists" are on crack. Consider the kinds of roles they get and I'll rest my case. -
PebblesReturns — 14 years ago(July 19, 2011 05:14 AM)
racroen
Well basically, you just agreed with my original point and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not think that any of them should be judged on looks, but talent. You fall in love with a character because the actor made that person come alive for you and this takes talent not looks. As I said in earlier comments, Hollywood has perpetrated this perfect image that society tries to mimic and it's costing America much more than makeup. My admiration goes out to the talented performers who refuse to compromise who they are and do not alter themselves or display themselves in a disrespectful manner. They need to be the example and be a positive influence to our children growing up. Good role models. This too, is a part of (or damn well should be) living in the public eye and under scrutiny. -
racroen — 14 years ago(July 20, 2011 04:54 AM)
PebblesReturns:
"you just agreed with my original point"
I never disagreed with it. You just thought I was being snarky when I said his tiny eyes make the rest of his face look bigger, but really, I was just setting things up for the absurd idea of fat eyes.
Haley Joel Osment has the same tiny eye thing going, and the comments on his board are even meaner. He's an odd-looking man, but he also happens to be a very good actor.
He was an odd-looking kid too, but sometimes odd features work on a child. Clint Howard and Mason Reese come immediately to mind. They were funny looking kids too (Reese looked like a Cabbage Patch doll and still does), but cute in a weird sort of way. I don't think anyone would call them cute now.
They've both done pretty well, though. They're sure as hell more successful than I am. -
ricky1319 — 14 years ago(February 04, 2012 12:09 AM)
Has anyone seen him portray Jim Morrison? He was so good in that, that even the Doors band members had a hard time telling their voices apart. He portrayed Morrison perfect. Even though a lot of that stuff in the movie was false(wish it was directed by someone else).
-
OrangeSlice84 — 14 years ago(July 15, 2011 01:32 AM)
It's ridiculous. Val is still better looking than the average joe I've seen on the streets everyday. But I do think he needs to shed a little weight though, just for the sake of his health.
either way, he's still handsome in my eyes.
I love to tour..<3