actors that work out

[Filip Plesha]

I've noticed this little pattern.

If you look at low budged films and TV shows that try to look big, most of the actors male or female have great bodies. It's like they are trying to sell themselfs on basis of good looks since they can't really act that good.

If you take a look at some of US best actors, they are usually regular people, with regular bodies.

But then take a look at some low budged Hollywood-wannabe TV movies, or soap operas, everyone works out.

 

Also, I find it so sad when low budged TV movies try to look big.

It's is a great pleasure to watch a low budged movies that stays "low profile", experimenting with styles, focusing on a more lyrical aspect of filmmaking.

And its so pathetic to see a low budged film trying to be a spectacle.

[Matt Pacini]

I think you're overanalyzing it.

 

Sex Sells.

If you're an actor, being sexy makes you that more valuable as a casting choice, regardless of how much talent you have.

There are good actors with good bodies (Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly) and there are bad actors with bad bodies, but either way, you're more likely to get cast if you look better.

Kinda like regular life, actually.

There have been studies that prove (what to me is obvious) that better looking people in all jobs, get hired more often, and then get paid better than average, or below average people.

The entertainment industry is no different.

 

The late Don Simpson was painfully blunt when casting. He would say "no, not her, because I don't want to fu** her, so the audience doesn't either, therefore we don't hire her".

 

MP

[Filip Plesha]

Sex Sells.

If you're an actor, being sexy makes you that more valuable as a casting choice,

 

That's exactly my point. But If you have a good movie, you don't have to sell it with sex.

[Chance Shirley]

> Also, I find it so sad when low budged TV movies try to look big.

 

From my very limited experience with "the business," I can tell you that "production value" (i.e. looking big budget) is very important in selling a movie. A good screenplay and good actors are all well and good, but if people deem your cinematography, editing, effects, and/or audio "cheap," it's going to be hard to get your movie shown on TV, DVD, or the big screen.

 

I realized this the first time I talked to a distributor about my first feature. His first question: "what did you shoot on?" Luckily, I said "Super 16." I got the feeling if I hadn't said that or "35mm," he would have probably hung up the phone.

[Chris Burke]

That's exactly my point. But If you have a good movie, you don't have to sell it with sex.

 

 

 

Possibly, but you will be facing an up hill battle if you have a great movie, that has not so interesting looking actors in it. If you want your movie to appeal to a huge audience,then you really should have an actor that is easy on the eye.

What exactly do you mean you hate it when a low budget movie tries to look big? Do you mean, big as in good? Just what is wrong with someone wanting to look good or wanting their art to look good? Can you really fault someone for that? Don't confuse looking good with looking insincere. Many are guilty of the later. . I do agree with you on the fact that few films take enough risks or just don't have the balls to.

[Alessandro Machi]

Somebody mentioned to me recently that EVERY shot in a commercial movie has movement of some type in it, panning, dollying, trucking, steadicam, actors walking, shifting their weight, leaning, running, chasing, being chased, dodging bullets, car crashes, & explosions, etc... etc...

 

I've been analyzing movies lately and dang if that isn't true like 90% or more of the time. Perhaps that is the biggest difference between the really big movies and the indies. I can count easily 10 shots in a row with some type of movement, then there might be a very short period of time with no movement, and then the movement starts all over again for another 10 shots in a row.

 

Many times the movement is not jarring, it's just there.

[Tenolian Bell]

Or possibly Filip you don't see the commercialization of it all. You are looking at movies as an art form while many view it as a business.

 

Because all of the major studios are owned by conglomerates. The parent companies want to use movies, television, and celebrity to sell their other products. I slowly painfully have been learning this lesson myself as I spend more time in LA.

 

You become privy to conversations of producers speaking about having some certain actor in their film because Honda will pay big money for product placement if that particular actor is driving the car.

 

I've heard conversations of agents competing to represent certain actors. What they use as leverage are commercial advertising deals that have nothing to do with that particular actors talent. Agents and managers are working hard to set up contacts and representation between actors and clothing, perfume, pizza, cars, bubble gum. Whatever that actor's physical attributes or celebrity persona can sell.

[Filip Plesha]

From my very limited experience with "the business," I can tell you that "production value" (i.e. looking big budget) is very important in selling a movie. A good screenplay and good actors are all well and good, but if people deem your cinematography, editing, effects, and/or audio "cheap," it's going to be hard to get your movie shown on TV, DVD, or the big screen.

 

That's exactly why low-budged films should stay away from high-budget scripts and themes.

You can't make a titanic movie if you don't have 100 million dollars. At least not AFTER Titanic was made.

So, why not make a movie that takes place in a hotel room and a coffy shop.

 

there is nothing "cheap" about a small project if it it doesn't go over its head

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly do you mean you hate it when a low budget movie tries to look big? Do you mean, big as in good? Just what is wrong with someone wanting to look good or wanting their art to look good? Can you really fault someone for that? Don't confuse looking good with looking insincere. Many are guilty of the later. . I do agree with you on the fact that few films take enough risks or just don't have the balls to.

 

Now that's the point of me responding to that, since you've asked the question, answered it yourself and commented on "my" answer.

 

No, that's not what I ment.

 

What I'm talking about is when someone makes a low-budget film about gladiators (to copy Ridley's Gladiator) and tries to make it look like a spectacle, or make a sequel to Titanic with another ship like that and some crappy video compositing effects.

[James Steven Beverly]

I don't know what low budget pic you've been looking at but the ones I've see usually has a disproportionate number of trolls sprinkeled through out them, mainly because they can afford to hire the really beautiful people. Look at Clerks. The women in that are nice looking but hardly gorgeus. All things being equal, (talent, being right for the part, easy to work with, ect.) I'd rather see attractive people than uggo's on screen any day of the week, wouldn't you? I mean after all, Nicole Kidman isn't a star because of her talent alone. If she were then actresses in their forties would have so much trouble finding work. Face it, WE ARE A SUPERFICIAL SOCIETY in many respects. Also a lot of these "films" are written, acted and directed so badly that the only thing they have going for them is good looking women, eather half or completely naked. I have actually watched bad movies just to see good looking women get naked in them. I sure I'm not the only one.

 

There is other thing. I was watching a doc. on 4 films that were picked up for distribution by this minor company, they were all serious films and it was about he stuggle to find an audience for them. One of the comments that was made was made by one of the distributers was " It would be so much easier to sell an independent picture if these guys would put a couple of good looking women and a car chase or two in them." This may sould frivilious but this is the way it is. You can eather accept it and compromise a little to get your film sold, of stubbornly refuse to compromise your original vision and deal with having trouble finding distribution. But if you do that you better be damn sure you vision is compelling enough to make people stand up and take notice, otherwise the only people that are going to see your film are you and your cast and crew's families and friends and the 10 or 12 people who sit through it at whatever film festival you happen to get accepted into.

 

Me personally, I'll give the buzzards what they need to sell my pic but try to keep as much of my original vision of the film as I can without killing it's box office. This is a business after all and BUSINESS is the BIG word in Show business. It's easy to do if you write it keeping that in the back of your mind from the start. I, myself, don't feel like trying to swim upstream in a very compeditive business. Every swinging d*#k in the world with a camera is trying to make the next Citizen Kane. so why fight a system with so much competition built in? Try to do good work within the rules. That to me is the key.

 

Also There even more competion for actors, good looking people work, it's that simple. I kow this for a fact because I am an actor. Is doesn't get you the job but it is a requirement to be even considered for the job. It's worse for women. That's why nose jobs, boob jobs and lyposuction are such big business in LA. It's the nature of the beast. I'll tell you another little story, After Lucas had made American Graffitti, the executive in charge wanted to release this masterpiece as a made for TV movie. If it hadn't been for Coppalla telling that executive, "I'll buy the picture for what you have in it right now!" American Graffitti would have been released on TV. So my advice is, if you don't have Coppalla backing your picture, give the salesmen something to sell your picture with. There's an old saying in Hollywood, " There are no rules in Hollywood, but you ignor the rules at at your own peril."You can always stick to your guns when your somebody but you got to get to be somebody first and if you ignor the rules you may never get there.

[Chance Shirley]

> So, why not make a movie that takes place in a hotel room and a coffy shop.

 

Nothing wrong with that. But if you want your movie to sell, it better be a well-lit, well-shot, and good-sounding hotel room or coffee shop. And, for heaven's sake, make sure the art direction is top-notch, too.

 

I hope I don't sound too mercenary about all this. I know there's a lot more to filmmaking than making a sale. But movies are expensive, and it seems to me you should try to make back some money for the poor soul(s) who put up the investment that allowed the movie to get made in the first place.

[Sean Azze]

A while back I caught the first five minutes of an episode of CSI Miami. It started with a group of two girls and two guys driving down an empty road. All of a sudden a helicopter lands a few hundred feet in front of them and a gun toting maniac jumps out and starts firing towards the car. I started laughing my head off because everybody in the scene was so unbelievably gorgeous - I mean even the gun toting maniac looked like he was plucked off the cover of a romance novel! And when I say gorgeous, I mean, these people looked unreal. They looked like a computer fabricated their faces so that every feature would be perfectly symmetrical. As nice as it is to stare at a pretty woman, I think I rather date a girl with a few flaws. Is it that much more enjoyable to go out with a statue? Anyway, I'm totally off on a tangent. :P

 

It seems like these shows cast these amazing looking people because the rule of thumb is to have photogenic faces on screen. That bothers me as a member of the audience because I find it completely takes you out of the scene when these characters do not resemble people you see everyday. I really felt like I was watching a calvin klein commercial, not a piece of drama. The guys need to have razor bumps. The girls need to have messy hair. We don't live in a perfect world. So how does the entertainment industry expect us to identify with these people when they inhabit one?

Edited March 28, 2006 by sean126

[James Steven Beverly]

I think there are moments when you need that, sure, but right now we're speaking in broad general terms and being uncomfortable because the people on TV or in movies at TOO beautiful, honestly, I think puts you into a minority. There are some films (usualy the better written and better directed ones) where all the characture's flaws are on display for all the world to see, but we're talking about low budget films. That's a different animal.

 

Charlese Theron and Nicole Kidman can be admired even aplauded for putting on makeup to hide their phenominal good looks and showing us they are more that just pretty faces, but they got where they are because they are so beautiful and talented, again they had to get there first, then they had to fight against their image in order to be taken more siriously as actresses. Many of the ungliest people in the industry are my favorite actors. James Woods, Humprey Bogart, Marty Feldman. Cloris Leechman, Jack Elam, Cathy Baits and many many others have done wonderful work, but in a low budget film, eye candy never hurts. You can surround the heroine with monsters, but the hero and the damsil better be gorgious.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Rik Andino]

What I'm talking about is when someone makes a low-budget film about gladiators

(to copy Ridley's Gladiator) and tries to make it look like a spectacle,

or make a sequel to Titanic with another ship like that and some crappy video compositing effects.

 

I know what you're talking about...

Usually these are not "low budget" independent films...

They're usually made-for-tv movies or straight-to-video films

That are financed by major studios and distributed by them.

 

They're a movie-of-the-week kinda crap with a washed up TV star as the lead...

No one really cares about these films including the filmmakers

They're just a paying-the-bills kinda thing.

 

It's good business for Studios and TV networks

Because truthfully people will watch anything if it's on tv or video.

They catch the audience with a title similar to a Hollywood Blockbuster

And a trailer mimicing that blockbuster and they'll have an audience even if it's just for half the film.

Yeah these kinda films usually fade quickly...

Resurfacing once or twice again on syndicated cable networks as a weekend matinee show.

 

It's the way the business work--don't knock filmmakers got to eat too.

[Filip Plesha]

I didn't say these are indipendent films, I said they are low budged, and I think they are. At least low budged for the kind of films they are presenting themselfs to be

 

The idea is usually: "If you liked (insert whatever spectacle blockbuster) you will LOVE this film"

Edited March 28, 2006 by Filip Plesha

[Hal Smith]

Also a lot of these "films" are written, acted and directed so badly that the only thing they have going for them is good looking women, eather half or completely naked. I have actually watched bad movies just to see good looking women get naked in them. I sure I'm not the only one.

I

Careful Captain, you'll have the PC police knocking on the door. On the other hand, Diogenes may have just found an honest man! :D

 

My thought on beautiful women might be that it's easy to undervalue the contribution makeup, hair, and wardrobe artists make. I've met one VERY famous actress in a very informal setting. Minus professional mh&w she really wasn't all that gorgeous. She has a very thin face, easily fixed by using longer lenses for closeups, a rather sallow complexion, easily fixed with makeup, and a good body but nothing to drive a 14 year old boy nuts. What she does have off screen is presence - a way of being the center of any room she's in.

 

In nude scenes in major movies the lead actresses often have body doubles. That's not only about modesty, many of them just don't look that good without their clothes on. They certainly have bodies good enough that a normally hormoned man would be crazy to throw them out of bed but not with the kind of perfection required to be shown 30' wide on a big screen.

 

One actress who does look pretty good naked is Sharon Stone. Apparently she was nervous enough about making another "Basic Instinct" many years after the first. She says she got herself naked in front of a mirror and then had a female friend take a look at her before saying yes to the project. I feel she's a hugely under-rated actress - and she has to deal with the sex and body thing as result.

[James Steven Beverly]

Sharon OHHHHHHHUHHHHHHHAHHHHHH (I'm sorry, I was playing out my own special little movie in my head). But siriously, I have made it a rule to try to include at least one juicy role for an older actress in everything I write. There are so many great actresses that are tossed aside like styrofoam packing when they reach their 40's and it just plain isn't fair. What a waste of talent. Debra Winger, Rosanna Arquette, Fay Dunnaway, Marissa Tomei, Linda Hamilton, Helen Hunt, Terrisa Russell, Glenn Close and dozens and dozens of other wonderful actresses you rarely see anymore. Their still attractive and usually much better at the craft than when they were in their 20's. It's like thowing away vintage wine because bottle isn't as pristine as it was when it first was first corked. This is one reason I want to see more women over 40 working. Sharon is a terriffic actress and still gorgous and I'm glad to see her staring in something high profile again.

 

I know what you mean about makeup though. The guy I usually work with is frantastic. He literally can take a simi-attractive girl and turn her into a doll. I've worked with some actresses that when they take off their makeup, I walked right past them and didn't recognize them.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Alternatively if any of you have ever watched a British soap-opera like Eastenders where things are in the 'Brit Grit' spirit of being delebretly down, dirty and ugly - you kind of end up appreciating the shallow eye-candy of something like The OC.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Alternatively if any of you have ever watched a British soap-opera like Eastenders where things are in the 'Brit Grit' spirit of being delebretly down, dirty and ugly - you kind of end up appreciating the shallow eye-candy of something like The OC.

 

To be honest I think it comes down to the target audience. What class.

 

All the fancy shows with the fit girls seem to be aimed at a more younger, probably middle class group. Whereas programs like eastenders are a more older and working class type of program.

 

If that makes any sense.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Chien Huey]

Hahahaa, funny to read this thread a couple days after having a conversation with a friend where my contention that all you need to have a great TV show is pretty people. My friend, a woman, was saying how "Grey's Anatomy" was a great show. I said "heck yeah, look at all the hotties on there".

 

For that matter, look at the shows that have revived ABC Television "Lost", "Grey's Anatomy" and "Desperate Housewives". Hotties on an island, hotties in a hospital, and 40s hotties in the neighborhood.

[Riku Naskali]

I work out too, but I don't have a great body ;) I'd actually recommend everybody in this business to do some kind of muscle training.

 

But yeah, I think it's pretty simple. Better looking people are easier to watch, unless the nature of the role really requires someone uglier.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

"Eastenders" doesn't rate a description as becomng as "Brit grit." At best it's a cheap, nasty TV series about cheap, nasty people living cheap, nasty lives, and I pity anyone to whom it is of interest.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

But yeah, I think it's pretty simple. Better looking people are easier to watch, unless the nature of the role really requires someone uglier.

 

 

You can't put people in such easty two groups.

First of all, having muscles does not always make you good looking, sometimes it makes you look ridiculous like Captain-power or something like that, specially on screen. And that's what I see in some TV series, people look ridiculous, rather than good looking. There is a line at how much work out you can do to look good. Getting your body into a nice shape is great, but when you start looking like action figures, that can be really funny to watch in a drama, unless you are playing terminator or something like that (which fits it)

Second, not everyone who lacks muscles is ugly.

For example, a great actor, Tom Hanks, has a normal body, like avarage joe, is he an ugly man? No he looks normal, like your neighbour.

Is it unpleasant to wathc Outcast just because the guy does not have a great body? No. And why?

Because nobody cares, it's a good movie, you don't even need clishe dialogue to enjoy it, much less

an attractive body.

[David Mullen ASC]

While one of course can find actors with ordinary bodies, it's true that as a whole, actors tend to work out more than the typical citizen in order to be better-looking, since movies often want actors to be idealized versions of humanity. That's been true since the beginning of cinema.

 

Occasionally I have been on a set doing some scene where a middle-aged actor or actress playing an ordinary person -- some accountant, let's say -- has to take off their shirt (let's say that they are having an office romance) and it occurs to me that they are rather healthy-looking, trim, muscular, etc. compared to how their real-life character should be. On the other hand, in real life of course you can run into an accountant who goes regularly to the gym, it's just that movies seem to be filled with a lot of people who go to the gym.

 

I remember watching "The Age of Innocence" and thinking that Michelle Pfeiffer looked too well-toned, with muscular shoulders, for a society wife of that era. I just did a movie with Angela Bassett and she's incredibly healthy, trim, muscular, which is a little odd for someone playing an overworked single mother living in Central Los Angeles, but again, it could happen. But you can hardly blame (or maybe we should be grateful!) these actresses for staying in shape.

 

It's also natural that struggling or beginning actors may work out even more to compensate for a lack of important credits or an impressive resume. They may even get cosmetic surgery -- but it can be sometimes self-defeating because then you just keep getting cast as the "party bombshell bimbo" and aren't taken seriously by the casting people.

[Max Jacoby]

I had the most ridiculous experience a couple of years ago with Dolph Lundgren on a really cheap direct-to-video film. The only reason the film was made in the first place was that Dolph had signed a contract for several films and was to be paid no matter what. His contract was about to run out and he still owed them film, so this utter piece of crap was put into production.

 

Anyway, we had one scene where he was lying topless in a hospital bed. It took ages to set up as he was constantly asking for the shot to be changed, as he didn't think he looked good in it. Then he started complaining to the Dop about the light, that he didn't look good in that either. Finally, after three hours, he finally agreed to do the shot. Before the take, he rubbed himself down with babyoil so that he would be all shiny, did twenty push-ups to get the muscles hard and lay down in bed. I put in the slate next to his arm and as I was announcing it, I noticed that he flexed all his muslces. And this was for a scene were he was supposed to be unconscious. I have never seen a more fit patient in my whole life!

 

But what can you expect from a man who is so vain and thinks so highly of his skills as an actor that he would talk to the director for fifteen minuted about how he would walk out of a door or during a rehearsal would take away other actors' lines and give them to himself.

 

The film, which I have seen in the mean time, is utterly hilarious by the way, because it is so amazingly bad. Needless to say Dolph is one of the main reasons for that. :D

[Daniel Stigler]

What she does have off screen is presence - a way of being the center of any room she's in.

 

 

I learned that this is a very important quality for an actor to have. Beauty alone doesn't do the trick.