Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course people are going to make a big deal when a woman in her late 50s who was known as a total s-x bomb starts coming to red carpets without makeup. You can dismiss it or criticize it, but it is pretty groundbreaking and it’s clear a lot of people find it important and helpful.

Some magazine, New Yorker I think, just did the “forever 35 face” article about how pretty much every celebrity is going to have access in the next few years to facelifts that are unattainable for the general public, but attainable for them, so pretty much most of the people we are going to see in the next decade on TV and movies are not going to look normal. Will they forever look 35… Of course not and a lot of people will probably still have crappy plastic surgery that we criticize just like now, but there is a sea change that I think is going to be even harder than growing up in the 90s and early 2000s which is saying a lot because that was hard.

This is a woman who really been through it and it was largely justified because she dared to pose in Playboy. She didn’t hurt anyone. From all accounts she seems like a great mother and very close to her boys.

Why going make up free and getting attention for it would be so triggering and upsetting to some of you is beyond me.

And why going make up free is somehow "groundbreaking, important, or helpful" to you is beyond me.

Because no one does it! Yes it is groundbreaking, because I can't think of another celebrity woman who goes in the red carpet or appears in photo shoots without makeup. Because she is older and allows her older face, with it's natural texture and wrinkles and redness, to be seen by the general public. And because she is not apologizing for it or admitting it looks bad, but glamorizing it and daring to present it as beautiful.

Some years ago, Jaime Lee Curtis appeared in a magazine in minimal clothing without retouching, lighting, or flattering posing, to demonstrate that her body looked like a normal, middle aged woman's body, with sagging, fat deposits, cellulite, etc. People called it brave and it was in a way, to expose herself without artifice. She made a point, and it was a fair one.

What Anderson is doing is similar, but different. She's not letting it all hang out -- she's still been ng styled, she's wearing flattering clothes, her hair is styled, there is artifice there. But she's leaving her face bare and daring to present it as beautiful as is. Many people will disagree but I happen to agree with her -- she has a striking, beautiful face and I think it is made more interesting to look at, and more beautiful, because it is in its natural state. You disagree and hate it, it makes you mad to look at it.

So yes, it is groundbreaking. I think it's fascinating. I hope it convinces other celebs to do the same, or to experiment with what beauty is. In the age of Botox, Ozempic, Spanx, fillers, contouring, the Kardashians, etc., I am interested in seeing something else. Anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course people are going to make a big deal when a woman in her late 50s who was known as a total s-x bomb starts coming to red carpets without makeup. You can dismiss it or criticize it, but it is pretty groundbreaking and it’s clear a lot of people find it important and helpful.

Some magazine, New Yorker I think, just did the “forever 35 face” article about how pretty much every celebrity is going to have access in the next few years to facelifts that are unattainable for the general public, but attainable for them, so pretty much most of the people we are going to see in the next decade on TV and movies are not going to look normal. Will they forever look 35… Of course not and a lot of people will probably still have crappy plastic surgery that we criticize just like now, but there is a sea change that I think is going to be even harder than growing up in the 90s and early 2000s which is saying a lot because that was hard.

This is a woman who really been through it and it was largely justified because she dared to pose in Playboy. She didn’t hurt anyone. From all accounts she seems like a great mother and very close to her boys.

Why going make up free and getting attention for it would be so triggering and upsetting to some of you is beyond me.

And why going make up free is somehow "groundbreaking, important, or helpful" to you is beyond me.

LOL +1,000

Anonymous wrote:Of course people are going to make a big deal when a woman in her late 50s who was known as a total s-x bomb starts coming to red carpets without makeup. You can dismiss it or criticize it, but it is pretty groundbreaking and it’s clear a lot of people find it important and helpful.

Some magazine, New Yorker I think, just did the “forever 35 face” article about how pretty much every celebrity is going to have access in the next few years to facelifts that are unattainable for the general public, but attainable for them, so pretty much most of the people we are going to see in the next decade on TV and movies are not going to look normal. Will they forever look 35… Of course not and a lot of people will probably still have crappy plastic surgery that we criticize just like now, but there is a sea change that I think is going to be even harder than growing up in the 90s and early 2000s which is saying a lot because that was hard.

This is a woman who really been through it and it was largely justified because she dared to pose in Playboy. She didn’t hurt anyone. From all accounts she seems like a great mother and very close to her boys.

Why going make up free and getting attention for it would be so triggering and upsetting to some of you is beyond me.

And why going make up free is somehow "groundbreaking, important, or helpful" to you is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find her "all natural" shtick so cloying and she looks horrific.

She's not horrific, but she's definitely not anything special. I've never thought that she was particularly attractive even at her best with makeup.

Take away the makeup and she wouldn't even be the prettiest female in my office (neither am I before anyone asks).

You are describing 99% of celebrities. Most are average looking. It’s called average for a reason. Plastic surgery and makeup help a lot of them.

Anonymous wrote:I find her "all natural" shtick so cloying and she looks horrific.

She's not horrific, but she's definitely not anything special. I've never thought that she was particularly attractive even at her best with makeup.

Take away the makeup and she wouldn't even be the prettiest female in my office (neither am I before anyone asks).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Last Showgirl was not a hit movie. She had some critical acclaim but it did "moderately" at the box office and those numbers define "hit" or not. And it was a not.

Yeah, but she has a ton of other things that were successes is the point. And the movie she did with Liam the naked gun did do really well.

She also has had a best selling memoir and documentary, successful theater runs, and she has a gardening show that doing well.

This was just in response to her “she’s a washed up actress from the 80s.” She’s had a lot of success well past the 80s and very recently.

Is she as popular as Taylor Swift? Of course not, but I am sure a lot of celebrities would kill for her steady success, and she is continuing to make money and have a nice career well into her 50s.

You don’t have to like her, but to act as if she hasn’t had success in decades is just not factually correct.

She is washed up. She said herself her income is normally something like $3000 per month only.
She has no talent, her voice is annoying. She was a sex symbol who aged instead of dying. That. Is. All

LOL okay. She clearly not washed up, she is working. That financial picture makes no sense considering she has a show on streaming, a best selling memoir a few years ago which I’m sure she got paid a decent amount for as well as a documentary on streaming which her son’s produced so I imagine they didn’t screw her over. I’m sure she got a healthy paycheck for naked gun as it was a reasonably big budget movie. You have a problem with her and she’s letting rent free in your head, which is weird.

I love how she’s washed up, but the only reason we’re talking about her is because she’s appearing on multiple red carpets for all the work that she’s promoting lately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Last Showgirl was not a hit movie. She had some critical acclaim but it did "moderately" at the box office and those numbers define "hit" or not. And it was a not.

Yeah, but she has a ton of other things that were successes is the point. And the movie she did with Liam the naked gun did do really well.

She also has had a best selling memoir and documentary, successful theater runs, and she has a gardening show that doing well.

This was just in response to her “she’s a washed up actress from the 80s.” She’s had a lot of success well past the 80s and very recently.

Is she as popular as Taylor Swift? Of course not, but I am sure a lot of celebrities would kill for her steady success, and she is continuing to make money and have a nice career well into her 50s.

You don’t have to like her, but to act as if she hasn’t had success in decades is just not factually correct.

She is washed up. She said herself her income is normally something like $3000 per month only.
She has no talent, her voice is annoying. She was a sex symbol who aged instead of dying. That. Is. All

Of course people are going to make a big deal when a woman in her late 50s who was known as a total s-x bomb starts coming to red carpets without makeup. You can dismiss it or criticize it, but it is pretty groundbreaking and it’s clear a lot of people find it important and helpful.

Some magazine, New Yorker I think, just did the “forever 35 face” article about how pretty much every celebrity is going to have access in the next few years to facelifts that are unattainable for the general public, but attainable for them, so pretty much most of the people we are going to see in the next decade on TV and movies are not going to look normal. Will they forever look 35… Of course not and a lot of people will probably still have crappy plastic surgery that we criticize just like now, but there is a sea change that I think is going to be even harder than growing up in the 90s and early 2000s which is saying a lot because that was hard.

This is a woman who really been through it and it was largely justified because she dared to pose in Playboy. She didn’t hurt anyone. From all accounts she seems like a great mother and very close to her boys.

Why going make up free and getting attention for it would be so triggering and upsetting to some of you is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, she looks horrific without makeup. She looks ragged and run down and so much older. And wtf happened to her eyebrows? They are nonexistent!

Yes. She looks like all of us do with no makeup. But for some reason, we're supposed to laud and celebrate her for looking horrific, like the rest of us.

Um no she doesn’t. I don’t know anyone that looks like that without makeup. Most people have eyebrows.

The fake romance was unnecessary and detracts from her efforts to be authentic. It's insulting to her fans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh I'm quite annoyed about the fake PR romance. That was some serious bullshite to hoodwink their fans that way.

I’m so confused… I read the article and there didn’t seem to be anything fake about it? It seemed like they really hit it off for a moment in time, had a great time working on the film and spent a great “lost week” together. He lost his wife…what 15 years ago and hasn’t been in a serious relationship since so I doubt she was expecting much from him and I doubt she wants to start a new life with a seven-year-old man frankly.

I took the article to mean and they really hit it off, but neither of them were going to do a serious relationship so they enjoyed their time together.

Frankly, I doubt he would know what a PR relationship was if it hit him on the head. He’s 70 and doesn’t seem to be a type to do Pap walks or to want to be known for his dating life. There are a lot of celebrities you could criticize for PR stunts but this ain’t it.

They had some kind of a one-week fling, with separate bedrooms, then proceeded to tease a romantic relationship while promoting their movie. They both knew what they were doing. Ick.

Anonymous wrote:I find her "all natural" shtick so cloying and she looks horrific.

How do YOU look without makeup, PP? I think she looks great - my only note would be to grow her eyebrows in but that's it.

I recently watched the SNL episode she hosted a million years ago and was surprised at how good a job she did. She was crazy skinny and all dolled up, but she looked gorgeous, and her stage presence and comedic timing were excellent.

It’s really sad to see her now without eyebrows. You’d think Hollywood would come up with a solution for such a malady.

Anonymous wrote:The Last Showgirl was not a hit movie. She had some critical acclaim but it did "moderately" at the box office and those numbers define "hit" or not. And it was a not.

Yeah, but she has a ton of other things that were successes is the point. And the movie she did with Liam the naked gun did do really well.

She also has had a best selling memoir and documentary, successful theater runs, and she has a gardening show that doing well.

This was just in response to her “she’s a washed up actress from the 80s.” She’s had a lot of success well past the 80s and very recently.

Is she as popular as Taylor Swift? Of course not, but I am sure a lot of celebrities would kill for her steady success, and she is continuing to make money and have a nice career well into her 50s.

You don’t have to like her, but to act as if she hasn’t had success in decades is just not factually correct.

The Last Showgirl was not a hit movie. She had some critical acclaim but it did "moderately" at the box office and those numbers define "hit" or not. And it was a not.