'Recent'?
But many of the roles we're casting these actors for are for parts in hypothetical films from earlier decades.
With all due respect, it makes ZERO sense to require recent high-quality headshots, even if one ignores the aesthetic issue (i.e. that many of these recent, high quality headshots are simply unflattering), because many of these actors will be (a) dead or (b) retired. If an actor is long dead, it stands to reason that you're not going to be uploading a 'recent, high quality headshot', and if an actor is long retired, and most of the hypothetical films they're being cast in are for much earlier eras, a 'recent, high quality headshot' is entirely redundant.
I enjoy this site. I am a regular user. I am using it to the max, but if you insist on very unflattering 'recent high quality headshots' over much more flattering promotional or photoshoot pictures that display an actor at their most iconic, it will alienate me.
Moreover, apart from the many good reasons I've already given, there is another compelling reason why older iconic images of an actor and actress make more sense than 'recent, high quality headshots'. A 'recent, high quality headshot' is not going to stay 'recent' for very long, is it? It will, naturally, date after a short period of time, and thus will have to be re-edited yet again, ad infinitum (how tiresome). Whereas one single iconic photo that is set permanently will never date.
Anyway, nice speaking to you. I hope my intelligent and reasonable arguments made sense. :)