To those insulting Val's looks
-
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 -
dracopticon — 14 years ago(July 19, 2011 09:26 AM)
Yes, yes! I totally agree that mr. Kilmer is one h*ll of an actor. Just take a look at the role he made eternal as Doc Holliday in Tombstone. That will forever be the pinnacle in his career IMHO. BUT: I do feel genuinly concerned for the guy. I hope so hard he gets a come back. He deserves it as much as anybody!
-
frankstallone1 — 14 years ago(July 27, 2011 04:17 PM)
Forget Doc Hlliday, how about Nick Rivers and Chris Knight.
Please, I beg the people who are remaking Real Genius to stop right now. It is a crime against humanity, and no one will be able to pull it off like Kilmer. -
stfrancisofdeath — 14 years ago(August 31, 2011 04:13 PM)
I was JUST reading (and I'm scouring my history to find it) that Val is on prednisone. My old man was on prednisone and he developed that so-called "moonface" and retained it up until his death. Discussing one's appearance I don't see much harm in, he's a public figure and it's going to happen regardless. It's the cheap shots, name-calling and insults that can be hurtful. Hell, Alec Baldwin was once the epitome of heart-throb but has made his weight gain work for him and as a prior poster said (and I'm paraphrasing) "People age and that would include celebs and with age comes health issues, sometimes weight gain but in the end they are still the same thespians they were 20 yrs. ago that we fell in love with". Hell, now there's just a little more of them to love. -SFoD
-
PebblesReturns — 14 years ago(September 01, 2011 01:57 PM)
Sorry that happened to your dad. I know that society needs to grow up and stop being so hateful. Someone having problems we should pray for and encourage them. To much hate and judgement! Nice comment stfrancisofdeath!
-
lsevenl — 14 years ago(September 22, 2011 09:30 PM)
Lol, it's just a huge shock. I mean I still watch top gun and can't believe it. It's not his "looks" just his weight. And don't use age as a factor. My dad is in his 60's and weighs 68 kg. He's 5"9.I'm heavier than he is but only because I have more muscle. Age doesn't make you put on that much weight. You may excercise less and eat worse. Val does look quite unhealthy
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=19395666 -
Doctor_Mabuse1 — 14 years ago(September 25, 2011 05:45 AM)
Despite the information being posted on this thread, there's a continuing ignorance of medical reasons for weight gain. Despite popular opinion, not all obesity is the result of overeating or lack of exercise. Countless illnesses and medication side-effects can cause gaining and maintaining such a disorder. Many of us will find this out for ourselves if we live long enough.
What's really ugly is disrespectful and bratty criticism and ridicule experienced by fat people. It's just easier and so much fun to judge and stereotype people as lazy, greedy slobs than to be caring and understanding. For all the talk of "health", our culture's only real issue with fatness is that vicious self-hatred finds it an eyesore.
Like it or not, even a public figure and performance artist such as Val Kilmer is not here for our pleasure. His value is not as a talent but as a Life.
Despite the militant PC anti-obesity drive of the present era, there have always been fat people and always will be. Furthermore, even if one drops out of the pressure of conformity and
chooses
to remain big, that is one's own concern and not ours.
For education on this important subject, see the following link:
http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/index.html
Always remember: "What goes around comes around."
Doctor Mabuse, Evil Genius, King of Crime