FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Most unrealistic film depictions..
Most unrealistic film depictions..
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *olarfox OP Man
over a year ago
North Cambs |
Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples??"
50 Shades of Grey nuff said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfox OP Man
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples??
50 Shades of Grey nuff said"
I've never seen it nor read the book...why so unrealistic?
In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples??
50 Shades of Grey nuff said
I've never seen it nor read the book...why so unrealistic?
In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles??
"
Of course it is, unless ugliness is a required feature of the character... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfox OP Man
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples??
50 Shades of Grey nuff said
I've never seen it nor read the book...why so unrealistic?
In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles??
Of course it is, unless ugliness is a required feature of the character..."
Well, I guess with Victoria and Albert, I think, to be remotely realistic, then it almost is...lol...they really were not attractive physical specimens...but I guess, Hollywood is all about the romance and fantasy world... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles?"
The thing is though, most of the most detailed Photographs of Victoria were taken when she well into old age. There are actually very few detailed pics of her when she was young, photography had only just been invented then.
To say she was "far from pretty" is a judgement based on what we see as pretty now and pics of her in old age. When she was young, she never had any problem getting attention from from numerous "suitors" and it wasn't just because she was the future queen. As it happens, Albert also didn't have any problem finding "suitors" either, it's just that he fell in love with Victoria. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Last night I watched The Young Victoria for the first time - I thought it a great film, but the casting of Emily Blunt as the young Queen Victoria and Rupert Friend as Prince albert was about at ridiculously 'Hollywood' as I have ever seen....great performances, but utterly ridiculous!!
Other examples??
50 Shades of Grey nuff said
I've never seen it nor read the book...why so unrealistic?
In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles??
Of course it is, unless ugliness is a required feature of the character...
Well, I guess with Victoria and Albert, I think, to be remotely realistic, then it almost is...lol...they really were not attractive physical specimens...but I guess, Hollywood is all about the romance and fantasy world..."
It's not like they had to play Quasimodo or John Merrick though.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tom Cruise was dissapointing as Lestat the vampire"
Not as disappointing as Jack Reacher who is supposed to be some tall, blonde hunky guy....A colleague was gutted to learn Cruise would play him...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tom Cruise was dissapointing as Lestat the vampire
Not as disappointing as Jack Reacher who is supposed to be some tall, blonde hunky guy....A colleague was gutted to learn Cruise would play him... "
Will need his platforms again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfox OP Man
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles?
The thing is though, most of the most detailed Photographs of Victoria were taken when she well into old age. There are actually very few detailed pics of her when she was young, photography had only just been invented then.
To say she was "far from pretty" is a judgement based on what we see as pretty now and pics of her in old age. When she was young, she never had any problem getting attention from from numerous "suitors" and it wasn't just because she was the future queen. As it happens, Albert also didn't have any problem finding "suitors" either, it's just that he fell in love with Victoria."
You make some good and interesting points and you are definitely right that there are very few clear photographs of Victoria as a young woman - that said, there are some and indeed one or two of Albert also.
I was basing my comments on portraits and photographs of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert from their younger years - necessarily in Albert's case as he died at only 42 - I would concede that perhaps what is considered to be attractive might have changed somewhat with fashion over the years, but my criticism of Hollywood and its need to 'air brush' and glamourize everything still stands...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tom Cruise was dissapointing as Lestat the vampire
I've never read the book so I didn't mind him."
I'd never heard of him either. This colleague kept raving about the books and character and shortly after, the film was announced. I found both a bit meh... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Adrien brody Leading the squad in 'Predators'
How do you go from Arnold to him? Arnold built like a brick house and his team of bad ass's get their ass's handed to them and his ass (arnold) personally whooped by the predator in the end and brody who looks anorexic beats the shit out of a wolf predator who's meant to be the daddy at the end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In the Young Victoria it is simply because both of the actors are so completely unlike the true historical characters they are portraying....Victoria in reality was 4'10 and very far from pretty, whilst Albert was rather non descript and balding.
Is it simply unimaginable that Hollywood might one day cast anything other than 'beautiful people' in these kind of roles?
The thing is though, most of the most detailed Photographs of Victoria were taken when she well into old age. There are actually very few detailed pics of her when she was young, photography had only just been invented then.
To say she was "far from pretty" is a judgement based on what we see as pretty now and pics of her in old age. When she was young, she never had any problem getting attention from from numerous "suitors" and it wasn't just because she was the future queen. As it happens, Albert also didn't have any problem finding "suitors" either, it's just that he fell in love with Victoria.
You make some good and interesting points and you are definitely right that there are very few clear photographs of Victoria as a young woman - that said, there are some and indeed one or two of Albert also.
I was basing my comments on portraits and photographs of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert from their younger years - necessarily in Albert's case as he died at only 42 - I would concede that perhaps what is considered to be attractive might have changed somewhat with fashion over the years, but my criticism of Hollywood and its need to 'air brush' and glamourize everything still stands...
"
I've got no problem with any criticism of Hollywood's airbrushing, it always stinks 
I have always had issues with peeps view an very very early photographs though. Painted portraits though have always been in the style of the day and in what was considered stylish and attractive at the time. I'm guessing there arn't many guys on this site would find "Mona lisa" over attractive. But at the time her portrait was painted things were very different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
