Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

georgiegirl

Members
  • Content Count

    1,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by georgiegirl

  1. Oh, by the way, who is the cutie patootie baby in the photo?
  2. OMG! I cannot believe this thread is still going! I am so pleasantly surprised. It's been a while since I've been here and it feels nice being in familiar surrounding and see old names I've grown to know and like over time, but where is Mongo and his birthday photo thread? Did I miss it in my search? Anyway, it took a sec for me to get this reply page to come up and if this board is as it was when I was last here, OMG! It still can't be busted! I'll know for sure when I got to post; that's when I ran into all kinds of problems last time. I see they changed something as far as posting photos, so the next time I have more time, I'll hunt for a stumper for you guys and find you're newest thread and see if I can do it! Again, it was nice to see all of you. I know that sounds odd, considering I'm really not SEEING you, but you guys know what I mean. I hope to be back soon and jump into the fun...GG :-)
  3. Hahahhahahahahahaha! I have to buy stronger reading glasses! lol That's the second time I've done that. lol
  4. Until Gagman comes in and tells us, I believe it's Coleen Moore, but.. As long as I finally go in here, I might as well give you another to ponder while we wait.
  5. Yes, it is Lucy! I was surprised to see a nudie of her. I thought the ladies back then were more modest than today's, but I guess I was wrong and some of them back then didn't have a big problem with showing their assets, or, as in Lucy's case, boobettes. lol :-) Here's another easy one.
  6. This was a topless of one of my favorite icons, or so the image said. I cropped it to save her dignity in case it is who they claim it is.
  7. I've posted these links before when this subject has come up. Enjoy! :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJuRVn2EIMM
  8. TikiSoo-Sorry about your unemployment, me too. Since last year. What is the upkeep of a horse? Say you have barn and stable, what are the other expenses, aside from ferrier and vet at times? Like food, what does it run? I still hope to fulfill my dream of owning one, but have no idea what it cost, and if I could, at some point, find a horse that needs a home, cool! I may be moving to upstate NY where I'll have some land, and, hopefully, a barn.
  9. Okay, is it Valentino in drag? lol If you only knew what I have to go through to post! Open, close, open, close, open, close. lol
  10. Her profile does look like Myrna Loy's. Gagman-Helen Kane?
  11. YORK - Budd Schulberg, the son of a studio boss who defined the Hollywood hustle with his novel "What Makes Sammy Run?" and later proved himself a player with his Oscar-winning screenplay for "On the Waterfront," died Wednesday at age 95. His wife, Betsy Schulberg, said he died of natural causes at his home in Westhampton Beach, on Long Island. She said he was taken to a nearby medical center, where doctors unsuccessfully tried to revive him. "He was very loved and cherished," she said. "On the Waterfront," directed by Elia Kazan and filmed in Hoboken, N.J., was released in 1954 to great acclaim and won eight Academy Awards. It included one of cinema's most famous lines, uttered by Marlon Brando as the failed boxer Malloy: "I coulda been a contender." Schulberg never again approached the success of "On the Waterfront," but he continued to write books, teleplays and screenplays - including the Kazan-directed "A Face in the Crowd" - and scores of articles. Spike Lee was an admirer, dedicating the entertainment satire "Bamboozled" to Schulberg and working with him on a film about boxer Joe Louis. Rest of story http://www.verizon.net/newsroom/portals/newsroom.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=newsroom_portal_page__article&_article=2260059
  12. Cine Maven-I have to wonder if these ladies ever went through an ugly stage growing up. lol MusicalNovelty-It's okay to guess. I just throw names out there all the time to see what sticks. lol I think your track record will still hold. You are so good, and I'd venture to guess, you're right with this one. :-)
  13. Thank you for your comments. Contrary to belief, I do not know the laws of writing a bio on deceased persons, but I do find it interesting a family member cannot sue for slander or defamation of character once you've crossed-over. I guess once you're dead, you're fair game, and it'd probably be too hard for family to disprove and dispel rumors and such once they're out there, and it would come down to he said she said and that only serves to bring more attention to the book, thereby giving it exposure to those who may not have noticed it at all. Living or dead, it appears proving slander is a toughie, a very expensive proposition, and just not worth the time or hassle. It really doesn't matter to me if the author is a top notch or bottom rung. I don't believe everything I read anyway, regardless of who wrote it. It's like old Ben said, ?Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.? Words to live by, for me, anyway. :-)
  14. See, that's the thing, no one really knows the whole story for sure. It's possible not every thing the studios did got documented, for a variety of reasons, so... I know I'm beating this subject like a dead horse, but I'm still scratching my head over this whole horse thing. Maybe that biographer Bret can dig up the answer. Ha! lol:-)
  15. Cine Maven- It's Arlene Dahl, but she sure does look like Jean Peters in that shot. :-) Fred-MusicalNovelty solved it about five posts down. It's Arlene Dahl. I was wrong that MusicNovelty solved Gagman's brunette so now we're back to her. That smile looks so familiar, but not a clue on my part. Maybe it's time for another clue. lol Gagman-Got another clue for us? :-)
  16. Each of us takes away from a discussion what we garner from it, if you don't see what I see here, well... The only thing I can suggest is go back and read all the posts. If you still don't see it... Have a great day...
  17. Izcutter-Odd as this may sound, I never buy books new. I either get them at second hand shops, yard, garage, or estate sales, or, of course, borrow them from the library. New books are so overpriced. lol :-)
  18. I couldn't get back on the board until now, and earlier I had to keep logging out, closing the browser and starting all over each time I wanted to comment, and I'll have to do that to post this when the time comes, so I'm sorry for the delay in my replay. CelluloidKId, the original poster, commented this book is worth the read. Obviously, he enjoyed it and the presumptions of the author don't appear to have been an issue for him/her. I didn't read the review he posted, nor did I read the posts that followed his initial post, I replied to his personal, in bold, comment alone and had no idea there was any controversy until it was brought to my attention. Bret, whether he is looking through gay colored glasses or not (I don't know this man's sexuality, nor do I care), took another avenue than the, let's say, upper echelon biographers have chosen. I'm sure those who want to be taken seriously in the field take a more conservative and painstaking road to compile their thoughts, thus their unsoiled reputations give them better access to those closest to the people who knew the stars they write of and pay homage. This author chose another route, but that shouldn't cancel out what he says, especially because we don't like his methods of gathering information, or what he has to say. Some folks believe the *Bible* is complete and utter bunk with no back-ups to support such claims, yet...Now that may sound foolish, and let me make this clear, I'm not comparing Bret's work to the Bible, just saying about considering the source of biographers. Masses in the public hated Kitty Kelly when she wrote her book on Frank Sinatra. There was outrage over that, and it sold in the millions thanks to those who came out against it and made *her* an issue and front page news. Ironic. People were quick to dismiss Christina Crawford's book *Mommie Dearest*. Right away she was called a blood sucker, making money off her dead mother's good name because she was left a pittance from Joan. If she was a victim of child abuse, she did not deserve to be taken down as she was by so many Joan fans. But we didn't want to hear it, so shoot the messenger. We can pick and choose which biographer we like and which we feel is telling it like it is, but how can any of us be so sure what we read are the facts in either case- good or bad? We believe what we want, and when it comes to our idols we tend to want to hear only the good and bury the bad, or what some perceive as bad. I still stand behind what I've said, I see homophobia here from some, and a mind set that being called gay is defamation. To each his/her own. All of us are free to think and feel as we wish, and that's a wonderful thing. Discussion, but never disrespect, makes life more interesting. :-) Message was edited by: georgiegirl
  19. > I dunno; even in Oklahoma, the shooting of middle-aged women on the prowl for younger men is apt to raise an eyebrow. Hahahahahhahaha! Good one! lol Izcutter-I know with my friend, they don't have animal control in their community, it is very rural, and I understand where these animals can be a danger to your household pets, but it still makes me sad to think these kinds of things happen. Thank God I was born in NYC where guns are used only on people. lol Just kidding! :-)
  20. And what do most other bio writers have to go on? Unless it's autobiographical, all bios are hearsay and speculation. They do research, speak to family and friends, read letters to and from, and review newpaper articles, etc. I doubt this Bret just pulled this stuff out of his head and wrote it down. I'd bet he did research, just as others do, and came to his own conclusion. I searched him online and as far as I can see, he's never been taken to court by present family members of the stars he's written about, and, my God, there are plenty! He did do a book on a living legend, Doris Day, and that seems to have gone without a hitch. I have never read any of his books, don't plan on it now that I got the gist of this Gable expose, but some authors take the high road, others not so much, but that's life. It still boils down to folks getting upset over this man speaking out on the possible flip side of our icons and what we deem as unacceptable behavior. Which, in realilty, for some is everyday life and as normal as good old apple pie.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...