Ugh, once again Hollywood casting people that look nothing like the real B&C. As usual, they're too GQ for the period and I will not be surprised that the film makers will have Matrix style gun handling techniques during the bank robberies and shootouts. Add in some Fast & furious car chase scenes to top it off.
Not having high hopes for this one.
It's ridiculous how they're being portrayed. These two were nothing more than low-life criminals who robbed and murdered people! Apparently Lifetime/A&E/History Channel have no problem glamorizing and slicking up such low-lifes in a bid for ratings. I know I won't be watching it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Seriously have you not see the other hundred of movies that glorify other killers? Gee I can think of one criminal that has been glorified 6 ways from Sunday that has a ton of movies about him. Anyone?!
Help my pea's are accosting my carrot's!
Just what do you think all television networks try to do with their programming? Of course. They are ALL after ratings. Doesn't matter what they throw at the viewers, they are still all after the best ratings they can get. Anything you personally watch on TV I can just as easily accuse of just being after ratings. That point should never even come up from any one here. Ratings grabs for television programming is and always will be a part of the picture. So just let that part of your argument go. It won't fly here.
As far as how B&C are being portrayed, why don't you look through the history of television and see how some of history's most famous bad guys were portrayed. Many of them were made out heroes or at the very least, heroic. And of course you always have motion pictures and how they show us criminals should be viewed by their standards. What about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? And I don't even want to try and count all the movies about Billy the Kid or Jesse James. Can't remember too many of them that portrayed them as the evil you seem to expect.
For television and for movies, truth about bad guys usually ends up behind the legends of their exploits. People come to actually pull for the bad guys in portrayals like those.
The entertainment industry is escapism and nothing more. People watch TV and go to the movies to escape everyday life and have some entertainment. If you want factual watching there are always documentaries, something this mini series is not.
In the original Bonnie and Clyde much of the truth was embellished to make the film more entertaining to the audience. They kept certain facts but changed them to fit the story the film makers were telling but made sure to keep the fact that being a criminal you will always pay the ultimate price. And it worked! People loved the film when it was released. I know I did.
So in a nut shell, watch this mini series or don't. That is your choice. But don't try to convince people that it is because this will not be truthful. Not too much on TV is these days. Think about it...how many politicians do you see on TV everyday and how many of those do you REALLY believe are telling the truth? If you claim any...I have this bridge I would love to sell you.
Ooooooh, thank you so much for that in-depth tutorial about TV entertainment! *snort*
I'll make whatever argument I please, thank you very much, with or without your approval. You've missed the point so badly, there's no use trying to save you.
Ciao!
Do you always act so mighty snooty when others present valid counterpoints to your own preconceived judgements? Or only when you're behind a keyboard?
"I'll make whatever argument I please, thank you very much, with or without your approval."
So did the other poster. And so do I. That is not your sole privilege.
Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.share
[deleted]
Oh, give it a rest. Television and movies have been inaccurately portraying real-life criminals and glamorizing their exploits since the beginning of movie-making. If you are still surprised at that and have greater expectations, you are out of touch with reality.
If it's going to offend your delicate sensibilities, turn off your set and read a book.
I am a writer. I use people for what I write. Let the world beware. ~ József Eszterhás
I can't think of anyone working in Hollywood that looks as "rode hard & put up wet" as the real folks, though. In particular actors who are young enough to play them are typically quite attractive or else they wouldn't be employed in the entertainment industry (not saying it's fair, just reality). So for me it comes down to whether they try to make them look accurate for the time period and the particular situation with make-up and wardrobe. B&C were known to take pride in their clothing and appearance despite the difficulties of maintaining those while on the run. So I don't think their being dressed nicely is much of a stretch. Of course there were times when they didn't have the luxury of baths and clean clothes, so we'll see if that's depicted or not. I remember in one of the clips I thought Bonnie looked pretty beat with no make-up on, while other times she's got it caked on. From what I've seen I do think the wardrobe is a heck of a lot more accurate than the old movie, though. They didn't even appear to attempt to make Dunaway's wardrobe & hair resemble anything Bonnie was seen wearing in pictures or even any style from the 30's. I think that may have been more of a distraction to me than the historical innaccuracies. While we're talking about that movie though, Dunaway & Beatty certainly were much more attractive than the real B&C too, yet that didn't seem to have been a problem for folks.
shareYou never knoow,you might be pleasently suprised. I think the actors they chose to play the roles look more like the original Bonnie & Clyde than Faye Dunaway & Warren B. I just saw the trailer for the original movie and it looks so comedic and understandably dated.
shareThe Beatty/Funaway movie is supposed to start out comically, but then midway through it turns dark and violent. I believe the trailer even states, "They roared off on what might easily have been a wild, romantic lark... but almost before they knew it, with the giggles still in their ears, they had blooded up four states!" This is what shocked people at the time. The movie starts out like a Keystone Kops comedy -- robbing an empty bank that had just closed, their dumb getaway driver parking the car during a heist, their first shootout with Blanche screaming like a maniac wearing an apron and holding a spatula, "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" playing during an early car chase scene, kidnapping an undertaker (played by Gene Wilder in a funny cameo) and his girlfriend -- but then the movie quickly turns on a dime (the undertaker scene is the turning point because Bonnie saw it as a bad omen) and you start seeing blood, mayhem, and despair. Since audiences had never seen bloody violence like this, it was indeed shocking, especially since it started out lightheartedly. They probably felt their senses bludgeoned after the shift. Since we've become desensitized by on-screen violence, I think it's hard for contemporary audiences to relate.
.
[deleted]
Actually Bonnie Parker if you look at her families album pictures was drop dead gorgeous. It was only later wearing those awfull dresses and beret that made her look blah. If you got the stomach to look at the morgue photos, even in death she made Holliday Grainger look like a dog.
[deleted]
In them old faded photos, I can't really tell how they looked, but the photos that survived make them look not so good. If she wore makeup, she should have looked better. If she didn't look better with makeup, which said suppose to make you look good, she must been ugly or average or mediocre. I know Clyde wasn't much to look at, but they were good enough for each other. You know how Hollywood is, they won't cast ugly people, their gonna cast good looking people, but it would be more authentic and realistic to cast average, raw looking actors and actresses to play real life average looking criminals. I haven't seen many real life good looking criminals.
shareTold ya months ago. It's just as bad as I thought it would be. Love all the slo-mo and clinically clean look, designed to appeal to its defenders on this board. Get uglier people to play in this and NO ONE would have complained, except Kardashian fans like Kristen, who has stock shares in the production company.
If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?
Get uglier people to play in this and NO ONE would have complainedAre you new to society? People will complain about anything and everything. You are a prime example of that. Me? I don't really care what they look like. I have enough things to worry about without worrying about a TV show. share
Holliday Grainger actually looks better then the real Bonnie, in the movie and in real life.
shareI guess the color photographs or are they colorized(?) of her in her mid teens, showed some beatifull facial bones and very nice eyes.
shareAnd if they were unattractive actors, someone else would be whining about that too.
shareif the movies have proved nothing its that we want UGLY MOVIE STARS!! Wake up Hollywood! these threads crack me up, this is news? they pick good looking actors for roles? if anything this is a downgrade from '67, Holiday is good looking but Faye in her prime was stunning and Beatty vs Hirsch forget about it. (-:
sharePerformance is what matters. Physical resemblance is secondary and arguably even negligible.
Jonathan Rhys Meyer's portrayal of Henry VIII in The Tudors, especially from Season 2 on, was in my opinion perfect. That he looked less like Henry than Charles Laughton, Robert Shaw, Richard Burton, Jared Harris, and other actors who've portrayed the monarch did not affect the strength of his performance. Laughton in particular looked exactly like Henry, yet his performance in The Private Life of Henry VIII was pure caricature.
I also think that Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of President Richard Nixon in Nixon was superb. Hopkins didn't look like Nixon, he embodied him. I think that it's one of his best performances.