Poll - for those that have seen the film

[axlish]

... you were being satirical, right? ... Me? No. I more or less told this to DJ after I watched his rough edit a couple of months ago. Sarah Polley is about as ugly as women get in these types of films.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hey Hey Hey, I would do Sarah Polley... it's all pink in the middle.

[axlish]

Hey Hey Hey, I would do Sarah Polley... it's all pink in the middle. So would I. That was more or less my point. Her and Fran are on the low end, and even they are good looking Maybe I'm just too Hollywood

[DjfunkmasterG]

So would I. That was more or less my point. Her and Fran are on the low end, and even they are good looking Maybe I'm just too Hollywood If I could get Fran in her DAWN years and Sarah Polley now into a 3-way we would really have a film called "THE RISING" w00t! You're not too hollywood, however, I know some people have commented on this as well but I am kind of glad it worked out as it did because they are everyday people. It's not like you see Sarah Polley as an Everyday woman... well maybe with those teeth she is. You'd think after all her paydays she would have gotten that Gnaw of hers fixed so maybe those hooks wouldn't scrape... catch my drift.

[axlish]

I always see hot women walking around I forgive all of this in Deadlands, I'm just reponding to the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything. Deadlands is a fine picture, as is. If Romero asked me what I'd change about Day of the Dead, I'd write him an essay.

[LouCipherr]

Sh*t, maybe next time we could get Jenna Jameson to be in Deadlands 2 - maybe she'd raise the bar for us ugly people. Axlish - I kinda get what you're saying, but to be honest, I do not see how better looking actors would've made a difference. If they act well, they act well. If they act horrible, they're horrible - looks won't change that. If you're watching a movie for how 'good' the people look and not the story, then you're watching movies for the wrong reasons - at least in my eyes. ....unless it's a porn.

[axlish]

Axlish - I kinda get what you're saying, but to be honest, I do not see how better looking actors would've made a difference. If they act well, they act well. If they act horrible, they're horrible - looks won't change that. If you're watching a movie for how 'good' the people look and not the story, then you're watching movies for the wrong reasons - at least in my eyes. ....unless it's a porn. You've got it all wrong. Beautiful people are sprinkled around most movies. Lets face it, movie actors are pretty much models who can recite lines for the most part. Even if they aren't the picture of attractive, they usually have a certain cinematic quality to them, for example, Steve Buschemi (*sp). With these beautiful people being a given in most cases, only when there is a lack of beauty will I notice anything. If you look at my original statement, I didn't think that the acting was overwhelmingly good, not bad, but not awesome enough to go with less attractive talent. DJ told me he had casting calls with better looking folks that couldn't act as well, so I forgive him. DJ and his friend were fine, they worked good as a duo, but when you toss in the guy with the trucker hat, and the mom, someone in there should have been cinematically attractive, as it would have been easier on the eyes. Again, the actors did a servicable job, so this is a minute complaint, but I feel the average viewer could have used some more pretty.

[LouCipherr]

Lets face it, movie actors are pretty much models who can recite lines for the most part. So Crispin Gover, Rosanne Barr, Robery De Niro, Uma Thurman (until Kill Bill.. ), Meryl Streep, and about a million other actors and actresses I could name are just models that can recite lines? I think that's bullsh*t. I see zero cinematic quality in Rosanne, Crispin or even Uma. What I do see is excellent acting with the exeption of Rosanne, but hey, she's been in movies, so you have to count her too. De Niro ain't "cute" but he has excellent acting chops, and yes, a good screen presence, but his looks have nothing to do with his acting. I don't disagree with you that good looking people are put in movies, but a actors or actresses 'performance' is much more important than their 'looks' - to me. An 'average joe' doing a kick ass acting job in a well written story is much more respected by me than some plastic model or some GQ looking guy doing a half-assed job (can you say Keanu Reeves? ). My opinion, of course, and no one needs to share it, but if that's what people go to see nowadays in film is just 'good looking people that can recite lines' then that's yet one more example of where hollywood has failed miserably. ::shakes head:: Geezus, what did I get myself into.. I'm not referring to Deadlands by any means with this discussion, but i'm referring to movies as a whole. We all know our acting ain't up to snuff, but such is life when you can't pay the people who can do the acting for you. ::shrugs:: I just can't agree that better looking people make a movie better. It just doesn't make sense. I see just as many ugly mofo's on the movie screen as I do 'lookers' - and most of the ugly ones don't even have a good screen presence - but they can act with the best of 'em. It's all good, we can disagree, it's what makes the world go 'round, man. By the way: you didn't notice that I was the 'friend' of Dj's in the movie? Now, if you're referring to me being an ugly motherf*cker, I'm not gonna disagree with you one bit - and lord knows I couldn't act my way out of a wet paper bag if I tried!

[axlish]

Lou, do me a favor a take a step back for a second, and please realize that I am only speaking about the one single solitary problem that I had with the film, and you are blowing it up to sound like I only like films with hotties in it. This isn't the case. Re-read my last post, I said DJ and you worked well as a team. I think that one of the other leads could be a little better looking. You took that as me needing them to be F_able, which not the case. Robert DeNiro and Meryl Streep are VERY attractive people. I mentioned Steve Buschemi in my last post, and even mentioned DeNiro in an earlier post. I said most actors are basically models that can recite lines, not all, most. Again, I am talking about a MINUTE detail, MINUTE Lou. I am responding because I CARE that you understand me. As of your last post, you do not. People do not go into movies expecting beautiful people, it is a given, and it is only noticed if there is a extreme lack thereof. Again, MINUTE DETAIL. I feel as if you are trying to paint me as someone who gets pissed when there aren't 10's filling up the cast. This is merely a suggestion that I thought I'd add. The question was asked, so I answered. EDIT: Here is a better way of putting what I am trying to say. I felt that the cast could have been more CINEMATIC

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think what Axlish is referring to is stage presence and photogenic quality. Am I right axlish?

[MinionZombie]

If that's the case, it was certainly a round about way of saying it. I for one was very confused...but then I usually am...by most things...

[axlish]

I think what Axlish is referring to is stage presence and photogenic quality. Am I right axlish? You nailed it hombre. Sometimes I am not the best at expressing what I mean via a keyboard. Again, minute detail. I liked Deadlands.

[MinionZombie]

*dusts hands* And that's the end of that chapter, another mystery of HPOTD solved with enough time for after dinner tea and cakes ... enough time for feet up with a paper by the fire ... *ahem* I've come over all 19th century again...

[LouCipherr]

Relax, it's not that big of a deal and i'm not making that big of a deal about it, but the way you put it axlish, that's exactly how it sounded. I know you said you liked deadlands, and we apprecaite that. I was speaking outside of the Deadlands, that's all. It's cool, no harm, no foul. Thanks for the clarification. I understand how hard it is sometimes to get across what you mean while typing away on a keyboard instead of being able to talk to someone in perosn - even here, that same exact problem has bit me in the ass numerous times, completely by accident.

[axlish]

Minute detail, gotcha, but I still think it's a silly observation for any movie, not just ours. Looks don't mean jack if you're a good actor (which is why i'm safe, 'cause I can't act but I'm a looker and a half, 'eh? ) I understand, but I didn't think that the acting was overwhelmingly good. Was it good enough to get the job done? Yes. Did the acting detract from the film at all? No. Trust me, if I think it is passable, then most people will. I am a pretty harsh critic, but only if I am asked.