Why Did Ed Asner Look So Old?

[Howard]

When The Mary Tyler Moore Show premiered in 1970, Ed Asner was 41. He
was just slightly older than actors like Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill are
today, but he looked much older.

Part of it may be baldness, except there are present day bald actors who
are older but who don't look similarly old. Keegan Michael Key, for
example, is 50, and Jason Statham is 54.

I don't think it was his pudginess -- Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill also
tend toward portly, but I think that tends to make them look younger, if
anything. And seeing as Asner acted for another 50 years, his general
demeanor at 40 wasn't gimpy or achy at all back in 1970.

Wilford Brimley and Art Carney are two other actors who played advanced
senior citizens in their 50s. Did actors just look naturally older in
the past? Was it a function of lighting and makeup? Or do actors today
tend to take advantage of surgery, botox, etc. that happens to be
extremely natural looking?

Or, was it just the case of a bad sample on my part? I know Jack Benny,
for example, was known for looking 39 well past his 39th birthday, so I
may simply be selecting bad examples to compare.

[Bob]

There've always been a few actors around on stage and screen who've specialized in playing people much older than themselves. However, I don't think Ed Asner was cast specifically as "old looking". Still, the existence of "old person players" shows his looks aren't that rare. What does it? Wrinkles and other loose skin (such as jowls) on the face and hands, plus acting crochety.

Bob in Andover

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 8/29/21 10:09 PM, Howard wrote:

Jowls?

[Questor]

>Re: Why Did Ed Asner Look So Old?

Genetics, life style (particularly over time), cultural bias, random factors?

I can't quite agree with your premise. To me, Asner looked to be in his forties
when he was on the MTM show. Some people's hair goes white early, and maybe
Brimley took advantage of that, and exaggerated other similar aspects. It's
called acting after all, so with the comparison to his co-stars, coupled with
our cultural expectations knowing his role, and our minds will do the rest. Not
sure about Carney.

--
And I will drink my coffee slow; and I will watch my shadow grow

[Michael Trew]

On 8/31/2021 4:58 PM, Questor wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 02:09:52 -0000 (UTC), Howard<how...@yaooho.com> wrote:
>> When The Mary Tyler Moore Show premiered in 1970, Ed Asner was 41. He
>> was just slightly older than actors like Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill are
>> today, but he looked much older.
>>
>> Part of it may be baldness, except there are present day bald actors who
>> are older but who don't look similarly old. Keegan Michael Key, for
>> example, is 50, and Jason Statham is 54.
>>
>> I don't think it was his pudginess -- Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill also
>> tend toward portly, but I think that tends to make them look younger, if
>> anything. And seeing as Asner acted for another 50 years, his general
>> demeanor at 40 wasn't gimpy or achy at all back in 1970.
>>
>> Wilford Brimley and Art Carney are two other actors who played advanced
>> senior citizens in their 50s. Did actors just look naturally older in
>> the past? Was it a function of lighting and makeup? Or do actors today
>> tend to take advantage of surgery, botox, etc. that happens to be
>> extremely natural looking?
>>
>> Or, was it just the case of a bad sample on my part? I know Jack Benny,
>> for example, was known for looking 39 well past his 39th birthday, so I
>> may simply be selecting bad examples to compare.
>
>> Re: Why Did Ed Asner Look So Old?
>
> Genetics, life style (particularly over time), cultural bias, random factors?

I agree. I've noticed, many times, that people 70+ years ago look
"older" than people appear to look today. On top of all else, I think
that the way they dress and compose themselves compared to people today
seems to factor into it. I have a picture of my grandparents here, he
was in his early 40's, grandma in her late 30's. I would have place
them easily at late 40's and early 50's, had I not known them and the
date it was taken.

[HVS]

On 01 Sep 2021, Michael Trew wrote

In a similar vein, my wife and I (aged 73 and 69; no children) have
noticed that those of our friends who have fully embraced the
traditional roles of grandparents in their 50s or 60s -- looking
after the grandkids, playing the "really-really-old" role with the
grandkids -- seem to have aged differently than friends without kids
or grandchildren.

It struck us that the "we're grandparents now" cohort seemed to
display more degenerative health symptoms; move more slowly; and are
a bit slower on the uptake than the "not grandparents" group.

This may well be a coincidence-- and we could be noticing things in
that group while just not seeing it in the no-grandkids group -- but
when we discussed it a while back, we'd both noticed what looked like
a correlation.

I don't think this is a modern thing, though: when we discussed it,
we could both remember single or childless aunts, uncles, and
parents' friends from 50 or 60 years ago who seemed more active than
the traditionally-generationed families.

--
Cheers, Harvey

[Les Albert]

On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 11:48:45 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

My wife and I see a similar difference in our friends who have
children (we don't). We have come to the conclusion that the
difference is due to the fact that we have had a much less stressful
life than the people we know who have raised children. In some
instances even when the children have grown up they continue to stress
their parents. Continued stress does affect a person's appearance and
health.

Les

[Michael Trew]

Hmm, that's interesting for sure. I can't say I've ever paid close
attention to that, but I will start. You've got me wondering now.

[Michael Trew]

You have me pitying my poor mother. I'm in my mid 20's now, moved out,
yet I know she still worries sick about me.

[HVS]

On 02 Sep 2021, Les Albert wrote

Thanks; interesting point -- I'll pay more attention to "no kids" vs
"no grandkids" group.

--
Cheers, Harvey

[Questor]

They dressed like fuddy-duddies and it makes them look older to us. It's
shifting styles -- i.e., cultural issues.

--
Mom says the hippo would eat me up but then, teacher says a hippo
is a vegetarian.

[N J Marsh]

HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> In a similar vein, my wife and I (aged 73 and 69; no children) have
> noticed that those of our friends who have fully embraced the
> traditional roles of grandparents in their 50s or 60s -- looking
> after the grandkids, playing the "really-really-old" role with the
> grandkids -- seem to have aged differently than friends without kids
> or grandchildren.

This is a bit of a family joke. I have relatives (both dead now, lived well
into their nineties) who were identical twins. They married sisters, who
were not identical but very similar. The two couples lived together, from
when they were married until they died.

By the time I arrived, there was not a problem telling them apart. One set
looked markedly older than the other set. Only one couple had kids…


--
njm

[Michael Trew]

Haha, that's funny!

Kind of an odd living arrangement, however. All in a single home?

[N J Marsh]

Yeah, big old farmhouse. I don’t recall if there was a separate flat or
anything, I think there was some type of separate living space, though.

--
njm

[Beaver Fever]

I can tell Kim & Kelley Deal apart

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:

Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just get BF's random thoughts?



--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Snidely]

Kerr-Mudd, John explained :

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
> Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just
> get BF's random thoughts?

Depends on what counts as sensible. If you don't see any recent posts
by Boron, your feed may have a problem.

/dps

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 02:50:25 -0700
Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kerr-Mudd, John explained :
> > On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
> > Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or
> > do I just get BF's random thoughts?
>
> Depends on what counts as sensible. If you don't see any recent
> posts by Boron, your feed may have a problem.
>

I saw a link about a Pirate, but 'twas back before Tawk Loik a Poirait Day.
Sorry.

[Boron Elgar]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:05:45 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
>
>Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just get BF's random thoughts?

There is FB, Reddit, Insta,Twitter,Tik-Tok and myriad other online
outlets for opinion, commentary, or dudgeon these days, not even
mentioning the group capabilities of certain messaging apps. The
Usenet version of AFCA, which really requires a decent news reader,
just falls by the wayside.

Add all that along with so many people accessing primarily through
their phones, and we are like buggy whips.

When something interesting from past days comes to mind, I have been
known to try a Google Groups search among AFCA responses and other
than the immediate reaction of "I see dead people," I am quite taken
with the diversity the group had in its heyday.

I do miss the community, which, from what I hear, is closest cousin in
the FB group (close, but no cigar, IMHO), but I just cannot tolerate
FB.

And no, regardless of what Trew tries to claim, the rec.food.cooking
group is not thriving. Its most innovative cooks and especially, its
culinary intellectuals are long gone, and its daily postings, which
are numerous, are filled with trolls and useless douchebags.

Sorry, Michael, but seeing that you, yourself, regularly dump 50+
posts within a small number of hours sometimes more than once a day,
over on rfc, you are indicative of the problems over there, not an
exemplar of the thriving community of old. Yeah, lotta posts, but like
the old politics groups on Usenet, its like flies on rice, which is
the closest rfc comes to a true cooking group. There are at least two
certifiables posting there and generating long threads these days. No
joke- they are used as group punching bags.

It should also be known that I am virtually shunned by the current rfc
group, and labeled as a sailor-swearing, unladylike (oh Lord, I LOVE
that) poster cuz I call out racists, sexists and assholes (this
reputation is well established, though perhaps described a bit
differently, here on AFCA, too, of course - I have no qualms about
telling someone to fuck off.) . Gotta love it.

I keep up contact with a few of the old crowd, whom I miss, from here
or from rfc or a couple of other groups, by email rather than Usenet.

[Beaver Fever]

I am wondering the same thing.

[Beaver Fever]

is that supposed to be a joke?

[Beaver Fever]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 2:05:47 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

I guess I can work this into the conversation.

I have one of those oversharing friends who really does post all day every day on Facebook. Usually the type of person I hide except she is very intelligent (was an attorney) and some keen insights in her posts. And cat pictures.

So starting 2 weeks ago got to read every little detail from "I don't feel well today" all the way to her last post "I am boarding the medevac flight for surgery" from which she never recovered.

I am heartbroken. Though it sounded serious I thought she would recover and we would all breathe a sigh of relief when she pulled through. Actually had a slight crush on her way back when before all the hot older chicks I would meet at concerts transitioned to just older.

Oh well, at least it got me and a friend talking again.

[Bob]

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 3:01:34 PM UTC-4, Boron wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:05:45 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
> >Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> >Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just get BF's random thoughts?
> There is FB, Reddit, Insta,Twitter,Tik-Tok and myriad other online
> outlets for opinion, commentary, or dudgeon these days, not even
> mentioning the group capabilities of certain messaging apps. The
> Usenet version of AFCA, which really requires a decent news reader,
> just falls by the wayside.
>
> Add all that along with so many people accessing primarily through
> their phones, and we are like buggy whips.
>
> When something interesting from past days comes to mind, I have been
> known to try a Google Groups search among AFCA responses and other
> than the immediate reaction of "I see dead people," I am quite taken
> with the diversity the group had in its heyday.
>
> I do miss the community, which, from what I hear, is closest cousin in
> the FB group (close, but no cigar, IMHO), but I just cannot tolerate
> FB.
>
> And no, regardless of what Trew tries to claim, the rec.food.cooking
> group is not thriving. Its most innovative cooks and especially, its
> culinary intellectuals are long gone, and its daily postings, which
> are numerous, are filled with trolls and useless douchebags.

> ...

And I didn't even get the joke in the group name of alt.cooking-chien until some years after it petered out.

[Questor]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:05:45 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
>
>Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just
>get BF's random thoughts?

Some of us are doing what we can to counter the stream of unconsciousness,
although the paucity of participants, for reasons ably outlined by Boron
elsewhere in this thread, make it difficult to sustain ongoing discussions.
Apart from that face page thing, blame should be placed on former New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who threatened to prosecute ISPs over alleged
child pornography in binary newsgoups and gave the major ISPs an excuse to shut
down their NNTP servers entirely back in the mid-aughts.

--
Long John Silver serves no king; no land holds him, that's why he feels like
singing

[Beaver Fever]

A similar thing happened with Craigslist just when I perfected casual encounters.

But the intelligent discussion really was the draw for me here and I can't find it anywhere!

[Les Albert]

It's a life-lesson, like, "Make hay while the iron is hot.".
Or "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.".

Les

[Michael Trew]

I'm well aware it's far past its heyday, as is the rest of text-based
Usenet. By "alive and well", I meant that the group still has quite an
active discussion going on, and it's not all spam/garbage (think:
alt.politics). Yes, much of it is off topic, and yes, I veer off topic
enough, but they keep me amused. 50+ multiple times daily? I think
not.. maybe per day, total.

If you can't beat them, join them. Does this group exclusively talk
about the Straight Dope and/or Cecil Adams? No.. didn't think so. RFC
would have died a very LONG time ago had there not have been so much
discussion outside of food. The few mental patients over there are
quite cringe-worthy, but what can you do.

That all being said, I wish I could have seen the group 20+ years ago.
(Well, I would have been 6 years old then..) Even in the past 5 years,
some great newsgroups that I have been on and off have dried up and
died. Time marches on.

[Boron Elgar]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:44:39 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:05:45 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
>>Beaver Fever <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>Is there anyone left here who can talk about something sensible? Or do I just
>>get BF's random thoughts?
>
>Some of us are doing what we can to counter the stream of unconsciousness,
>although the paucity of participants, for reasons ably outlined by Boron
>elsewhere in this thread, make it difficult to sustain ongoing discussions.
>Apart from that face page thing, blame should be placed on former New York
>Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who threatened to prosecute ISPs over alleged
>child pornography in binary newsgoups and gave the major ISPs an excuse to shut
>down their NNTP servers entirely back in the mid-aughts.

Forgot about that with Spitzer. Cutting off his nose, too, I bet.

[Boron Elgar]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:47:33 -0400, Michael Trew
<michae...@att.net> wrote:

>On 9/20/2021 3:01 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:

>>
>> There is FB, Reddit, Insta,Twitter,Tik-Tok and myriad other online
>> outlets for opinion, commentary, or dudgeon these days, not even
>> mentioning the group capabilities of certain messaging apps. The
>> Usenet version of AFCA, which really requires a decent news reader,
>> just falls by the wayside.
>>

>I'm well aware it's far past its heyday, as is the rest of text-based
>Usenet. By "alive and well", I meant that the group still has quite an
>active discussion going on, and it's not all spam/garbage (think:
>alt.politics). Yes, much of it is off topic, and yes, I veer off topic
>enough, but they keep me amused. 50+ multiple times daily? I think
>not.. maybe per day, total.

I use Agent. Real easy to see time stamps and count up posts.

>
>If you can't beat them, join them. Does this group exclusively talk
>about the Straight Dope and/or Cecil Adams? No.. didn't think so.

Um...you might want to find out the basis of this group before you get
Cecil pissed off like that.

>RFC
>would have died a very LONG time ago had there not have been so much
>discussion outside of food. The few mental patients over there are
>quite cringe-worthy, but what can you do.

There was ALWAYS discussion outside of food, the level of discourse
was quite different, however.

>That all being said, I wish I could have seen the group 20+ years ago.
>(Well, I would have been 6 years old then..) Even in the past 5 years,
>some great newsgroups that I have been on and off have dried up and
>died. Time marches on.

My posting experience with rfc, as with AFCA, as with most of my
connections with Usenet, only goes back to the late 90s, more or less,
but there was IRC and even BBs and similar before that. I have no
sense of loss or of changes that have happened to any of those formats
per se, but do miss many previous posters and their interactions on a
rather personal level, too. The Vicious Circle of our own making,
though without lunch. Many Usenet groups developed such clusters
within them. Many of us knew each other IRL and actually got together
with some frequency.

Too many really smart and witty participants have not just floated off
into other formats or left online posting behind for intellectual or
time reasons, but are ex-parrots.

[Questor]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:47:33 -0400, Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote:

>If you can't beat them, join them. Does this group exclusively talk
>about the Straight Dope and/or Cecil Adams? No.. didn't think so.

I have to quibble with you there. While Cecil and the Straight Dope are
certainly welcome topics of conversation, I have always thought that the charter
of this newsgroup, if you will, is that we of the teeming millions have adhered
to Cecil's motto and joined him in "fighting ignorance." Thus it could be
argued that given the proper spirit of inquiry, nothing is off-topic in this
group.

--
Nachofication: the belief that everything tastes better with melted cheese

[Howard]

Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Too many really smart and witty participants have not just floated off
> into other formats or left online posting behind for intellectual or
> time reasons, but are ex-parrots.

I miss the ex-parrots.

I have to wonder about the Facebook ones, though, who could return -- I've
known some people who have quit that world who say their moods and whole
outlook on life improves a lot when they delete the app, or for that matter
stop visiting Nextdoor or similar things. They really are awful.

[Boron Elgar]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yaooho.com>
wrote:

I got out early. Glad I did.

[Michael Trew]

On 9/25/2021 12:08 AM, Questor wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 23:47:33 -0400, Michael Trew<michae...@att.net> wrote:
>> If you can't beat them, join them. Does this group exclusively talk
>> about the Straight Dope and/or Cecil Adams? No.. didn't think so.
>
> I have to quibble with you there. While Cecil and the Straight Dope are
> certainly welcome topics of conversation, I have always thought that the charter
> of this newsgroup, if you will, is that we of the teeming millions have adhered
> to Cecil's motto and joined him in "fighting ignorance." Thus it could be
> argued that given the proper spirit of inquiry, nothing is off-topic in this
> group.

No need to quibble; I am approachable. :)

Fighting ignorance.. it's taking longer than we thought ;)

I used to get the Straight Dope newsletter to my e-mail.. I wonder
whatever happened to that? It seems that it just went to re-runs one
day, then it died off all-together.

[Boron Elgar]

And yet you thought SD was self-focused mono-topic?

[Michael Trew]

Pardon? I'm not sure what you are inferring by that.. but I don't
recall saying that.