Actresses and their age

Status
Not open for further replies.
While the the risks of birth defects do increase with paternal age, the risk factors remain pretty low, and start later in life than is the case with mothers. A 45 year old mother has close to a 1 in 30 chance of conceiving a child with down syndrome, compared to 1 in 1400 in their early 20s. There's no equivalent ramp up for old males.

There are a lot more risks though, than just downs syndrome. And a lot of the health risks associated with older fathers, affect the child later in life:

Daily Mail said:
Worldwide data from more than 60 teams of researchers on the health risks associated with older fathers found that men aged over 35 had a 50 per cent lower chance of conceiving over a 12-month period than men 25 and under, even after taking into account the age of the would-be mother.

The risk of miscarriage and premature birth also rises when the man is more than 40. A study of 23,821 pregnant women analysed by the researchers found that pregnancies involving men aged 50 or older were twice as likely to end in the loss of the foetus compared to younger fathers.

And the problems may not end with conception.

Advanced paternal age (over 40) increases the risk of breast cancer in their daughters by around 60 per cent, according to one of the studies the American researchers looked at (one of five to find a link between advanced paternal age and breast cancer).

Children conceived by fathers over 40 also have a 30 per cent increased risk of epilepsy, a 37 per cent higher risk of Down's syndrome, a 14 per cent greater chance of childhood leukaemia, and a 70 per cent greater likelihood of central nervous system cancers (such as brain tumours).

New York Times said:
Compared with the children of young fathers, aged 20 to 24, those born to men older than 45 had about twice the risk of developing psychosis, the signature symptom of schizophrenia; more than three times the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of autism; and about 13 times the chance of having a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder. Children born to older fathers also tended to struggle more with academics and substance abuse.

I mean, not to derail the thread too much, but I think this is something that really isn't well known. It's an issue only starting to get more attention now. To bring it back to the thread topic, I think it's certainly true that older men are still perceived as being equivalent to younger men, when it comes to...what would you call it...mating quality? But the reality is that, if we're subconsciously letting "mating quality" affect our attraction to age groups, then older men are inferior to younger men. Maybe in a couple decades when that becomes more well known, we'll see it reflected in media too?
 
Considering the text (Animated disney movie) places the beast at 21 and both Gaston and Belle slightly younger but around the same age.

Every single cast member of Beauty and the Beast is too old including Emma Watson.

As for Anne Hathaway. She has already been a Disney Princess 3 times. Just rewatch her SNL skit from a decade ago if you want to see her as belle.
 
I mean, I understand what you're saying and it's definitely true that the process of having a child is more dangerous for older women than older men, but older men are also significantly more likely to father children with birth defects. I think you're absolutely right about the perception, but older men aren't the best candidates for "breeding" either.

Oh I know. But I was talking about (historical) danger to the mother as much as the offspring. And pointing out who promotes simplistic versions of that.
 
Hollywood has a kind of fucked up problem (I think) with how they treat women and their love interests in movies. I'm not sure what to think of it entirely, other than I'm not a fan. There are plenty of articles about it online that are interesting. Here is one, and has some interesting graphs:

01-emmaStone-new.nocrop.w529.h700.png


29-jlaw-age.nocrop.w529.h700.png


29-scarjo-age.nocrop.w529.h700.png
 
Oh I know. But I was talking about (historical) danger to the mother as much as the offspring. And pointing out who promotes simplistic versions of that.

A lot of the biological aspects of attraction would have been in place many thousands of years ago, and would have had no bearing on anything past the child rearing years. Most of us fall apart fairly rapidly at some point between our 60s-80s, because evolution effectively doesn't "care" what happens at those ages. Did you ancestors make it through childhood and their child-rearing years? Good enough. Mutations leading to late-onset genetic diseases were never selected against, and were therefore allowed to run rampant. Chances of you living past 60 to worry about said late-onset diseases weren't all that great for most of human history anyhow.

Social aspects of attraction are a separate matter.

However, modern health and medicine is great. Plenty of people look great well into middle age. There's no real reason to pair Will Smith with someone who is like 1-3 years post-college age.
 
I don't get it either. Not only is Hathaway still gorgeous, I agree that she would have fit the role perfectly.

It's a stupid standard that the industry needs to change.
 
while i do think that actresses post 30 get shafted way too much, i feel like Hathaway would indeed be too old for this particular role.
they portray her as very young and naive, even Watson is pushing it tbh.

that being said Gaston was WAY too old. dude looks great but definitely looks his age.
beast is like whatever because he's on the screen for 10 seconds and even then it feels right that he's a bit older than her (even if he wasn't supposed to be)
 
as bad as Hollywood is, many other national cinemas are considerably worse.

the Indian film industry is essentially predicated on the same 20 dudes who got famous in the 90's or the early 00's (or even earlier) still playing the charming romantic roles to women who are not allowed a leading film career after the age of 30. The same is true of the Chinese and Korean film industries as well, with the problem being only a little less severe (Carina Lau and Gianna Jun are doing fine, everybody else...).

Some European countries do well (France's strong bench of divas pulls its weight), but generally its a problem worldwide.
 
Amy Adams is 9 years older than Henry Cavill.

Is this the biggest anomaly ever ?

She's 12 years older than Armie Hammer in Nocturnal Animals.

The Superman dynamic is interesting because Lois is often older than Clark. Margot Kidder was older than Reeve in the 1978 movie; Teri Hatcher older than Dean Cain. Lois tends to be introduced years into her career before meeting Clark. Also partly why Superman Returns' Lois felt so miscast.
 
Art imitates life. Youth is valued much higher in females than males - this stuff goes all the way back to ancient Mesopotamian fertility idols.
 
The problem is, in the original, the prince had until his 21st birthday to convinced someone to willingly love him.

So is Belle supposed to be 11 in that movie by your logic? In this movie, they aged him up for some unknown reason.

I haven't watched any Disney adaptions but in the story the prince gets turned into a beast after he is an adult and then is for a "long" time one which would insinuate, definitely 30+.
 
Men are at their prime looks-wise in their 30s, women in their 20s.
Plus it's name recognition. If you look at modern cinema, the only young stars are women. Men don't get to become big untill 30s.
 
Hollywood has a kind of fucked up problem (I think) with how they treat women and their love interests in movies. I'm not sure what to think of it entirely, other than I'm not a fan. There are plenty of articles about it online that are interesting. Here is one, and has some interesting graphs:

I definitely agree with you about the problem of sexism and ageism in Hollywood, but these graphs are intentionally misleading and it's kinda a pet peeve of mine.

The Y-axis starts at 16, which skews the scale. Makes the age differences look far more vast at a glance than they really are. And for several of those films, the actors aren't the love interest of the actress. In Chef, for example, Scarlet Johansson and Jon Favreau are co-workers and there's no romantic interest even implied. His actual love interest in that movie is his ex-wife, played by 42 year old Sofia Vergara.
 
Belle is 16, is she not? Both Gaston and the Beast are quite a bit older than her in the animated film, are they not? Wuth the way Belle's arch goes, she shouldn't seem mature in order for her choices and reactions to make sense as the character was originally conceived for the animated movie.



Not that this is necessarily an issue with a live action film based off an animated property.
 
Doesn't it have to do with them actually shwoing signs of aging a lot quicker than a show can usually accommodate? A 25 year isnt likely to hit a growth spurt playing a 16 year old, but an 16 year old could grow a foot and have a beard between seasons of a tv show (hypothetically speaking). Not to mention laws regarding minors and working in media

Minors with full time acting commitments require access to education and can only work certain hours. Giant pain in the ass for TV shoots which are often 12-16 hour days, and some shows require lots of night shoots. They'll almost always cast 18+ to play 16.

The Beast is 20, as the curse needed be broke by his 21st Birthday.

You're right.

The actor is also obstructed for almost the entire movie.
 
Minors with full time acting commitments require access to education and can only work certain hours. Giant pain in the ass for TV shoots which are often 12-16 hour days, and some shows require lots of night shoots. They'll almost always cast 18+ to play 16.

There's this, + needing a parent/guardian to sign off on a lot of things. Even shooting a non-nude love scene would require drafting a bunch of legal documents, having parents on set supervising, etc. It's a logistical nightmare. Much more cost and time-efficient to just not cast minors. It's not like 18 year olds look drastically different from 16 year olds anyway. They still look like kids. Most people don't look "adult" IMO until their early 20s.
 
This dude in Monster Trucks is meant to be in high school lol

L1RmWCKr.jpg


Actor is 27 haha


Which GAFers were these?

The reason why Anne Hathaway is too old to be belle is because we already have a frame of reference of what she looks like as a 16/17yr old disney princess

https://youtu.be/2GPrq4UTlyI
Ella Enchanted
https://youtu.be/2CkcwPi20ms
Princess Diaries

The Marority of people who are the target audience for this version of beauty and the beast have seen these movies multiple times. Princess Diaries and its sequel probably 100s.

Anne Hathaway's age in this cast is less of an issue with her age and more of an issue that the Audience saw her grow out of the role a decade ago.

A great example of this is Alison Brie being 27 and playing 19 in Season 1 of community or being 35 right now and still being a somewhat acceptable choice as Belle because the wider audience doesnt know who she is. (And she looks great for 35)
 
then why didnt they cast the prince closer to the character's age too, then




like emma watson's age counterpart instead of someone almost a decade older :x
 
Isn't a similar age gap present in the original story as well?

Not in the disney film. The beast turns 21 at the end of the film and knows Belle for at least 6 months. So that Places him at 20 at the start of the film.

Belle is considered too old to be living with her father and eligible to marry. Using medieval standards that places her youngest possible age at around 16 since it wouldnt be uncommon for a 15yr old to still be living with their father unmarried.

So that at most places a 4 year age gap between Belle and the beast.

In the most recent film the Age Gap is 8 years. With the Gap to Gaston being 11 years.

The origional disney film isnt specific about Gaston's age, however his status as most eligible bachelor wouldnt be maintained if he was significantly older then his potential teenage brides. The film also presents Gaston as less mature then the beast so its likely that he's around 19/20
 
Age disparity in sexual relationships has certainly developed through time and in many societies but hollywood amps that up quite a bit.

Why the industry does it, seems related to the general conceptualization our societies have of sex-appeal. The reasoning is similar to why ugly people tend to have lesser opportunities in the movie-business. It's obviously not about the acting. The prejudice Anne suffers as she goes along in her age is the same that favored her at a young age. For men that period is extended. But the inequality actually has roots much broader than gender.
 
Although even Roger Moore said he was creeped out by it.

Yeah, Jane Seymour was barely 20 in LALD. At least they had the good sense to have Moore reject Lynn-Holly Johnson's advances in FYEO (although better sense would have had them just not include a scene where a 20 year old tries to seduce a 50 year old).
 
It's a long story and good issue that often crazy - in context of the film - age differences are glossed over.

That said specifically to B&B Watson is the right age for Belle and Hathaway older than the character should really be (although I'm sure she could carry it).

The specific issue here is the prince should probably have been younger actor. Gaston age gap works in context I'd argue particularly if they'd gone with a younger prince. He's the older dominant male who decides he's getting the young attractive beauty and you'd have the duel focus of him unable to accept her wanting a younger man and a less attractive one (as beast).

It's ages since I've read original or any of the text versions so it may be there's a large age difference there as that wouldn't have been uncommon.

I would like to see current films move away from the young female lead means older male love interest paridigm though.
 
This dude in Monster Trucks is meant to be in high school lol

L1RmWCKr.jpg


Actor is 27 haha


Which GAFers were these?

I feel like this is part of a different "story", namely that of casting high-schoolers with way older actors. Here for example:

rehost%2F2016%2F9%2F13%2F1b59c62c-3c29-49ff-9f33-0058e1856ad0.jpg


This is supposedly four 16 year olds. In order they are actually 22, 24, 17, 25. Barton is the only one even close to what she's playing.
 
Men are at their prime looks-wise in their 30s, women in their 20s.
Plus it's name recognition. If you look at modern cinema, the only young stars are women. Men don't get to become big untill 30s.

Yeah, I still can't fathom how Tom Cruise look like in his late 20s
 
I feel like this is part of a different "story", namely that of casting high-schoolers with way older actors. Here for example:



This is supposedly four 16 year olds. In order they are actually 22, 24, 17, 25. Barton is the only one even close to what she's playing.

Barton looks older than all of them there. Weird. Lol, sounds like a excuse for the police.
 
I definitely agree with you about the problem of sexism and ageism in Hollywood, but these graphs are intentionally misleading and it's kinda a pet peeve of mine.

The Y-axis starts at 16, which skews the scale. Makes the age differences look far more vast at a glance than they really are. And for several of those films, the actors aren't the love interest of the actress. In Chef, for example, Scarlet Johansson and Jon Favreau are co-workers and there's no romantic interest even implied. His actual love interest in that movie is his ex-wife, played by 42 year old Sofia Vergara.

What? He obviously is banging her, especially when she comes over and he cooks for her. She's laying on the bed like she's ready to get down just watching him cook. Also, Vergara mentions that him and Scarlet have a romantic relationship during a conversation with Favs later on. You have to be willfully ignoring it to not notice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom