Do you agree the movie stars of the older/classic movies are much better looking?

I'm straight and male so I may not be the best judge. However I think the movie stars,especially the male actors that acted in the older movies circa the 1930s-early 1960s are so much better looking than the 'so-called' actors in contemporary films.-------And when I refer to better looking,I also mean more charismatic, great screen presense and so on.--When you compare real actors like Cary Grant,Clark Gable,Gregory Peck,televisions Clint Walker,the list can go on and on to contemporary people in movies--there really is NO comparison. The people in contemporary(modern) films are just unappealing.--Many of the women actresses in the classic/older films are also alot better looking in a more natural way-real women.--Is it just me ,what do you think?

 

i guess you might be right.that's kind of a tough one to answer because i know what you mean but i don't know what the reason would be.the physical part of it anyway.partly it was maybe the makeup that was required for earlier film equipment.the make up department was a very important part of the films.....i would go back further to the silent era to actresses like lillian and dorothy gish,mary pickford and louise brooks.....the beauties of the 30's...the ww2 era ladies...and the full figure ladies of the 50' and 60's..diet maybe.i don't know.certainly actresses and leading men knew their craft better maybe that's why they came across looking better....maybe an inner confidence that came across on the screen.it will be interesting to see what others have to say.i don't want to take too much away from today's actors and actresses of today but i do know what you're saying.

 

The studio system played a big part in it.In order to be a leading man in addition to talent you had to have a certain look,often tall dark and handsome.That also applied to the older television shows.

 

television of the late 40's -50's often was unflattering for many of the people on the shows.i would think the transition from radio to television had a similar affect somewhat like the transition from silent to talkies movies.some stars were able to do it while others had a tougher time of it.also early television camera equipment required some heavy duty makeup.then in the mid 60's there was the transition from black and white to color and more challenges.still for me that 30 year period was the greatest age of television show business.it was a time when the shows were recorded "live" .it was also a great era of improvisational television.i'm glad i was old enough to catch some of those early shows.speaking of appearances though i remember seeing stars like jayne mansfield and mamie van doren on talk shows and thinking how beautiful they were.

 

I like the old movies with women who look like women, today the women in the movies look like 13 year old boys (too skinny and emaciated ) women look best the way the creator made them, with tits and ass. TV is the great conditioner, it conditions us to be attracted to 13 year old boys who are trying to look like women.

Does anyone remember Marilyn Monroe? She was a size 14. Now if the media says someone is beautiful she is a size 0 or 1.

Just my thoughts.

Peace
Dan

 

Clark Gable...had bad teeth and smelt of ciggies and alcohol...and wasn't that good an actor.

Anyhoo.
I think there are stars today that can compare even better.
Georg Clooney
Brad Pitt
Daniel Craig
Benicio del Toro
Javier Bardem

Perhaps a difference is the roles they do (violent / sexual / swearin etc) and the access we have to them now.
There possibly was a mystique about the earlier stars that has now gone.

 

I fully agree.--And the women in the older movies/tv shows also carried themselves like women.They acted like women,had style and class.Doris Day in her prime is just one example of so many.

 

I disagree. Go check any magazine store...and you will see rows of magazines wittering on about celebrities weight...or lack of it.
It is true, for some reason, celebrities wish to be thin...not if they read those magazines they would'nt. I have no idea why they do.

 

Clark Gable was just one of many examples of course.However he 'commanded' the screen.He was known as the "King of MGM",because he was so popular.His screen persona , personality and charisma even more so than his acting ability,which I think was still pretty good,had people lining up to see his movies in the cinema.

 

Steady on...but,
Yeah...I know.
But that waters down my argument now doesn't it.

 

Waukegan, the type of live television shows you're talking about were before my time,but it must have been great.There were so many wonderful talents that did live tv. I consider televisons 'Golden Age' to be the 1950s-1970s.However if I had the priviledge of viewing those early live shows I would probably say tvs golden age was the late 1940s-70s instead.--And it's interesting you mentioned the transition to color of tv that primarily happenned in 1965(of course there were a few color tv shows made earlier).The color on those older shows is so much better than what they film with now a days.Just like technicolor in the older movies,some made as early as the 1930s is far superior.

 

mmm, Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Gary Cooper, Victor Mature, Tony Curtis - the list goes on!

Black and white is far more flattering format than colour for anyone, but i still think the actors from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood are way more sexy!

 

Some greats there,thats exactly what I'm talking about.--My wife who usually never watches westerns,suddenly has started watching Cheyenne,good classic show by the way.They put that show back on the air.I asked her why she liked that show so much,she said she loves Clint Walker who starred in Cheyenne,and I've got to admit,the guy in his prime is probably one of the best looking guys that ever appeared in movies or tv. www.clintwalker.com

 

Agreed. Mmm... Cary Grant and Errol Flynn. :cheers2:

 

i find they just had a way of being classy and sexy at the same time