stunners gone bad?
- Thread starter sam83uk
- Start date
.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 4,021
- Location
- a crappy part of London
To the person who said Sharon Stone - there was a picture of her in the paper a couple of days ago looking horrendous, maybe there was lot of make up involved for Basic Instinct 2.
I watched Logan's Run a while back and was impressed with the hottie:
Then I saw the credits and it was this woman from Spooks:
I watched Logan's Run a while back and was impressed with the hottie:
Then I saw the credits and it was this woman from Spooks:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,288
Goatboy said:
That's Jenny Agutter? I had no idea! Ew.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4,223
- Location
- Returning video tapes
Goatboy said:I watched Logan's Run a while back and was impressed with the hottie:
Then I saw the credits and it was this woman from Spooks:
I would point out, being a bit of Jenny fan, that there is 30 years between those two photo's, and three decades won't be kind on anyone (though I still would
). But what we're seeing, very graphically in some cases is which is best... The grow old gracefully or 'Do a Leslie Ash' argument?
Despite the potential for a big argument
this is an interesting and rather funny thread. In my opinion Daryl Hannah and Michelle Pfeiffer look better now than in their eighties 'prime' for instance. But of course you only have to look at Ms LeBrock, or Tim Dalton to see the OP's point, and the least said about Micheal Jackson the better (My eyes! The goggles. They do nothing!)It's called...
1) Ageing
2) Seeing them without make-up on.
3) Seeing them without being airbrushed to hell and back.
There are much, much more attractive girls walking down the street everyday than the disgusting celebrity filth. I personally don't find the "flawless" projection of women on TV and in magazines attractive anyway.
1) Ageing
2) Seeing them without make-up on.
3) Seeing them without being airbrushed to hell and back.
There are much, much more attractive girls walking down the street everyday than the disgusting celebrity filth. I personally don't find the "flawless" projection of women on TV and in magazines attractive anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Why DOES mankind feel the need to immortalise itself with statues and celebrity magazines? Who cares as long as it looks good.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Jane Seymour?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 528
hmmmmmmmmm
MC Roffels
Robosapien said:
MC Roffels
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,328
- Location
- Cornwall
I'm surprised no one has posted a few pictures of Mickey Rourke. His plastic surgeon deserves to be shot because he looks a right mess now.
Sharon Stone and Michelle Pfeiffer still look pretty tasty and I think Daryl Hannah looks better now than she did in Splash.
What about Raquel Welch?
Sharon Stone and Michelle Pfeiffer still look pretty tasty and I think Daryl Hannah looks better now than she did in Splash.
What about Raquel Welch?
Pigeon_Killer said:I'm surprised no one has posted a few pictures of Mickey Rourke. His plastic surgeon deserves to be shot because he looks a right mess now.
Sharon Stone and Michelle Pfeiffer still look pretty tasty and I think Daryl Hannah looks better now than she did in Splash.
What about Raquel Welch?
Hubba Hubba!... GILF (sorry)