Why was DeForest in old-man makeup?
- Thread starter φ of π
- Start date
He was only in middle age for a Vulcan. Sarek doesn't look much different between TUC and the epsiode Sarek. He does look significantly older by Unification though!Even though Spock doesn't look a single day older in Unification than he did in The Undiscovered Country.
In the future cosmetic surgery should be as routine as getting your teeth bleached. Should be a Starfleet perk as well.
...But they have grown out of such frivorities! Along with firm boobs and whatnot.
Of course, they use plastic surgery all the time. Khan probably had his face done daily when he was working for Marcus. Kirk only changed his face once, but the TNG era heroes all did it at least once, I think. (Who didn't?) And of course, when they changed back, they didn't wish to "improve" on the original in any way.
Timo Saloniemi
Of course, they use plastic surgery all the time. Khan probably had his face done daily when he was working for Marcus. Kirk only changed his face once, but the TNG era heroes all did it at least once, I think. (Who didn't?) And of course, when they changed back, they didn't wish to "improve" on the original in any way.
Timo Saloniemi
Or it would not matter whether your boobs drooped or not as long as you work without pay to better yourself.....
Last edited:
Patrick stewart one of those guys who looked old when he was young but then really didnt age much after that. Barely much difference between encounter... and nemesis picard.
Have you seen Stewart lately? The man is as hale as he ever was.
Ironically, that is maybe the most valuable asset an actor can have, a prolonged consistent look. Looking the same for 20-30 years is money in the bank, even if that look is "Old Guy"
^I think you're mistaking "bald guy with gray hair" with "old guy." Stewart doesn't look old to me in that Dune photo at all. Lots of men are bald or gray by their 30s, so it can't really be used as a metric for "old."
It can't be used as a metric for young though can it? Especially in an industry of image. I'm not trying to insult anyone, or suggest he's bad looking. Many think quite the opposite, but it's hardly fair to say gray hair doesn't elicit associations of old age. It's one of the most noticeable effects of getting older. Coupled with male pattern baldness, which isn't exactly the same as voluntarily shaving bald, & yes it does evoke an image of aging.
Stewart is quite possibly the most confident man to EVER sport the male pattern baldness look, but he did look 50 when he was 44, & it wasn't just balding & graying that did it. It's his genetics.
This is Jared Leto at 47, who still looks 27, & a dark haired, full hair piece wearing Stewart at 35, with wrinkles, creases, furls, etc... His face has looked miraculously the same for 40 years, that is to say... not youthful
That Romulan Ale finally took its toll on Bones in his 130s.
The point is, the amount and color of a person's hair are far from the only traits you consider when assessing their age. Put a hat or a hoodie on Patrick Stewart in that 1984 photo and he wouldn't look any older than the robust 44-year-old he was at the time. He could maybe even pass for upper 30s.
Personally, I think it's hyperbolic and ridiculous to use the word "old" for anyone under, say, 65 or 70. Mature is not old.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's foolish to mistake "associations" for absolute facts. You have to question preconceptions and first impressions, judge the full context rather than just one or two data points in isolation. Just because a perception exists doesn't mean it's truthful or fair.
I don't think that's true at all. Maybe if you're only looking at the top and sides of his head, it might be, but his actual face, the stuff between the eyebrows and the neck, is much more lined and drawn now than it was 40 years ago, and his voice is much rougher and more aged. Granted, ten years ago I might've agreed with you somewhat, but he's definitely showing his age now.
I never said it was the only trait to aging. I said it's often recognized as the most noticeable sign of aging. When gray hair is on someone, you rarely think of "Young" as a descriptor for them.
Ok, & I think it's a little silly to use a term like mature to reflect age. I know 10 year olds who are mature. Mature isn't an age group, & to use it as such is only euphemism to soften the reality of age setting in. 65 to 70 is retirement age. It's the age of geriatrics, & in a lot of cases & many cultures it's commonly referred to as elderly. IMHO, "Old" or "Older" is more sensibly a time period before that, by maybe 10-15 years, which comes after looking middle-aged, which is most commonly around a person's 40s, & that is not concretely defined anyhow, because it varies by individual some. Looking old can even be earlier, because the main prerequisite is simply that you no longer look young, which is sensibly a period of time when you are no longer a youth, but not yet older looking,
I never said anything about facts. It's just personal interpretations, & I'm not alone in them. It's all subjective. How old you think someone looks is exactly the same kind of judgement you might make as how beautiful you think they are is.
Right. I never said otherwise. From about 1975 to 2005, his face changed very little. Since then yeah, geriatric stuff is sinking in a bit more. The same is true of Sean Connery. It still doesn't change the reality that it's commonly believed Stewart had an unusually LONG stretch of time where people thought he aged very little, & a lot of that was because he developed the more common aspects of age much earlier than most people expect, those traits being gray hair, male pattern baldness, & a somewhat hard lined face. His consistency of appearance comes on the heels of having prematurely aged in those ways, & held there an inordinately long time before he started showing signs of being elderly
With a wig Stewart looks very much like my childhood's best friend... more than very much.
Because DKelly was around 67 at that time plue Admiral McCoy as he was was, as Data stated, "137 years old Admiral according to Starfleet records." It's a simple as that.
Something that's worth pointing out is that at no point in Encounter at Farpoint do they ever specifically say how much time has passed since the TOS movie era (in fact, the exact year wasn't established until the end of TNG's first season). So, regardless of how it came across in execution, McCoy looking so visibly aged was likely to quickly clue in to viewers, especially those not as familiar with Trek, that this was a long, LONG time after Kirk's era.
Well, they did have Picard say to Q that it had been 400 years since people wore the 20th-century military uniform he affected, whereas the TOS films had clearly established themselves to be in the 23rd century. And Data did say that "the Admiral" was 137.
As I said, the idea that future humans might have much greater longevity/slower aging than we do just didn't occur to anyone involved. So if they were going to feature a 137-year-old man, they just took it for granted that he'd look really, really old. There's nothing more to it than that.
What? I think he seemed pretty damn well preserved and healthy compared to any 137-year-olds in the real world!
weren't they also trying to hide the fact it was McCoy? Iiirc he Kelley was creditted as "The Admiral" and talk about in almost 3rd person manner.
