2004, he turned 34 in February. At his youngest, he could have been 33 when shot.
So why didn't he change the script to say that instead of 29? He didn't even look 29, he looked closer to 35.
I actually thought it was meant to be a gag and was expecting the staffer to say "29... bollocks" or something.
2004, he turned 34 in February. At his youngest, he could have been 33 when shot.
So why didn't he change the script to say that instead of 29? He didn't even look 29, he looked closer to 35.
I actually thought it was meant to be a gag and was expecting the staffer to say "29... bollocks" or something.
I agree, he didn't really look 29 and was more like mid-30s. Simon is the kind of guy that always looks a few years older than he actually is. Like someone else said, it's acting and he has the right to be as old as he wants as the character. But I'm not sure why he couldn't just be his real age of 33/34 in the movie? In fact, that would make him seem more like the underachiever/lovable loser he was supposed to be in the beginning of the film. Maybe 29 seems like the age when one is "supposed" to start growing up and acting their age? Who knows.
shareCall me crazy, but could it be because his character was 29?
shareSimple answer: he's playing a character, not himself. We know this, he calls himself 'Shaun' not 'Simon'.
29 and 34 is not too much of a difference in ages for it to be a problem. It's nowhere near as bad as American teen movies that cast actors in their mid 20s to play 17 and 18 year olds!
It's a movie. Yeah he may of been 34, but he was 29 in the movie, that's how movies are made, they make changes and it's all made up as well
share