Something about modern war movies, the cast do not look the part of people from the early 20th century, but rather 21st century hipsters plucked into WW1.
Compare the cast to a film like Saving Private Ryan, where they picked actors that actually had a look to them that matched the era. When you look back at photographs of the soldiers, they all looked much older and more mature for their age, compared to the metrosexuals they chose for this film.
Ok boomer
shareThey looked like 21st century hipsters?
I'm not a pro historian, but the gear and the dress looked fairly accurate next to historic photos I've seen.
Lol no, it’s in their faces. People in WW1 actually looked different than they do today, you have to pick actors who look the part when you compare old photos. These actors looks like effeminate Gen Z-er models. This was also the problem with Dunkirk. Very bad casting.
You’re trying very hard to not understand.
That's silly. Peoples' faces haven't changed since then.
Maybe it's because you're used to seeing photos of those WW1 soldiers in black and white and of poorer quality, they looked different to you.
Of course they have, it’s called epigenetics. I suggest you look into it.
shareThe stupidity and condescending, cunty quality of your posts makes me think you're a troll.
Things like nutrition and health care have improved since then here in Western countries, so people today are taller and generally have better teeth and perhaps a more healthy appearance, but there hasn't been any kind of widespread changes to the shape of our faces to make us look more "hipsterish" because of epigenetics.
The actors from 1917 would not look out of place, other than being a little taller than average possibly, if you were to send them back in a time machine. No one would give them a second look. Also, you would not be able tell the difference between photos of modern people taken with cameras and dressed in clothes from the time, aged to look like they were taken back then, and actual photos of people back then. No prosthetics necessary.
Look at this man! He'd stand out like a sore thumb back then! Better put him in some serious makeup. He looks weirdly hipsterish!
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2020/01/09/8v66_fp_v1678_wide-84d72f58b250a6518de45d8bbfa3fe786c82443b-s800-c85.jpg
LOL. Idiot.
That is all. I'm done with you. Go back to the bridge you crawled out from under.
You are so mad it’s unreal, lol.
Let me explain it to you simply boy. Modern “actors” are picked because they have a very specific look to them, ie movie star. They look soft and effeminate because that is what is in vogue. You travel back in time to 1914, people looked rough and rugged because they grew up working in mines or on farms. That actor looks like a wimp who would have been raised in royalty, not a working class man.
Also you should realize Steven Spielberg agrees with me: “ "We look more innocent. In those days, all the boys looked like men.
"Today boys 17 or 18 years old look like children, but back then, the 16-, 17-, 18-year-old face actually looked sometimes like a 29- to 35-year-old face. If you look at all those guys coming down the gangplanks in the documentary footage, they all look much older than they actually were.”
There is your explanation. Now go suck on that, stupid hipster. You have terrible observational abilities, rofl
[deleted]