JoeySanJoaquin Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 It wasn't too orange, that's just the way it photographs with the lighting on this pic, even the dress shows it and we've seen pics of the dress also and it was gold not orange. This comment is with Lam's picture and a reply to Midiki's post. Can't you see the orange TINT on the windows and building in the background also? And her wig STYLE was perfect when she came in but looked too scrunched up by the time she got to the podium to present. And if you're going by this lone shot, it's taken outdoors, with natural sunlight. Looks like someone's candid, not a "professional's" (papparazzi or not) shot from the look of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think she never looked better than her 1965 appearance on "the Steve Lawrence Show". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikidiki Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 It wasn't too orange, that's just the way it photographs with the lighting on this pic, even the dress shows it and we've seen pics of the dress also and it was gold not orange. This comment is with Lam's picture and a reply to Midiki's post. Can't you see the orange TINT on the windows and building in the background also? And her wig STYLE was perfect when she came in but looked too scrunched up by the time she got to the podium to present. True actually, it is probably an over exposed shot but still, I don't think the colour is very flattering on a woman that age. Just being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmadluv7 Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 True actually, it is probably an over exposed shot but still, I don't think the colour is very flattering on a woman that age. Just being honest. Right this isn't such a good pic, Let me find a bit better quality pic to look at... Also, I think the wig was pretty. Umm, I think it was a little "wiggish" LOL I've seen some more natural looking wigs on Lucy that have complimented her, but by this time, I don't know what approach she was taking with her hair. I know some time before she was re-rocking the longer wigs, and then later went back to the boufant but i think she looks okay. Any body remember that video of Lucy on youtube that showed GOOD coverage of her on the red caret talking to some news station saying "Hi Christina-God love ya!!" lol Well that seemed like a good idea of what Lucy looked like that night. It wasnt all wrinkles and lashes, she still had her looks- NO WONDER the crowd LOVED her legs open. But to answer the question lolol HER LIPS ARE ON! LOLOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 And if you're going by this lone shot, it's taken outdoors, with natural sunlight. Looks like someone's candid, not a "professional's" (papparazzi or not) shot from the look of it. Amateur or professional, it's one helluva beautiful shot of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 True actually, it is probably an over exposed shot but still, I don't think the colour is very flattering on a woman that age. Just being honest. Balderdash, she looks sensational for 77. The again you liked her with that awful hair in Best Foot Forward, LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Right this isn't such a good pic, Let me find a bit better quality pic to look at... Also, I think the wig was pretty. Umm, I think it was a little "wiggish" LOL I've seen some more natural looking wigs on Lucy that have complimented her, but by this time, I don't know what approach she was taking with her hair. I know some time before she was re-rocking the longer wigs, and then later went back to the boufant but i think she looks okay. Any body remember that video of Lucy on youtube that showed GOOD coverage of her on the red caret talking to some news station saying "Hi Christina-God love ya!!" lol Well that seemed like a good idea of what Lucy looked like that night. It wasnt all wrinkles and lashes, she still had her looks- NO WONDER the crowd LOVED her legs open. But to answer the question lolol HER LIPS ARE ON! LOLOL Her hair looks sensational here but on the show itself somebody scrunched it up too much. She should have told them NOT to touch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think she never looked better than her 1965 appearance on "the Steve Lawrence Show". True, nice hair, nice dress for that show, and even that shorty outfit showing off her gams. Then again, she more often than not looked great all through the sixties. Look at her at the Emmys in '67 and also '68. Casual chic in '67 and pulling out all the stops in '68. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmadluv7 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 True, nice hair, nice dress for that show, and even that shorty outfit showing off her gams. Then again, she more often than not looked great all through the sixties. Look at her at the Emmys in '67 and also '68. Casual chic in '67 and pulling out all the stops in '68. Maybe you all had something when you mentioned those eyes! I've never seen Lucy's eyes this vibrant I think they caught a flash, but beautiful they yet are!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Maybe you all had something when you mentioned those eyes! I've never seen Lucy's eyes this vibrant I think they caught a flash, but beautiful they yet are!! Whoa! LOVE candids like this: don't know what/where/when it was taken (pre-stroke, obviously) but it proves that in her later years, she still looked beautiful all done up, despite not being pulled tight with Irma's strap jobber and without one of her signature wigs. BEAUTIFUL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikidiki Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Whoa! LOVE candids like this: don't know what/where/when it was taken (pre-stroke, obviously) but it proves that in her later years, she still looked beautiful all done up, despite not being pulled tight with Irma's strap jobber and without one of her signature wigs. BEAUTIFUL!!! WOWOWOWOWOW!!! She looks STUNNING LaMarr! I wish she wore her wigs less often, she looks so natural here and so youthful for her older age! Beautiful photo! She actually looks like an older Lucy Ricardo in that photo. I could imagine that's what Lucy Ricardo would look like now! LOVE IT!!!! What year was that taken????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 She actually looks like an older Lucy Ricardo in that photo. I could imagine that's what Lucy Ricardo would look like now! LOVE IT!!!! Exactly! Good call, Miki!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 Maybe you all had something when you mentioned those eyes! I've never seen Lucy's eyes this vibrant I think they caught a flash, but beautiful they yet are!! ABSOLUTELY STUNNING, AND IN HER OLD AGE TOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mmadluv7 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 WOWOWOWOWOW!!! She looks STUNNING LaMarr! I wish she wore her wigs less often, she looks so natural here and so youthful for her older age! Beautiful photo! She actually looks like an older Lucy Ricardo in that photo. I could imagine that's what Lucy Ricardo would look like now! LOVE IT!!!! What year was that taken????? I was thinking thee exact same thing. Some times I ask my friends, does this look like Lucy Ricardo? Sometimes, I get so use to seeing her in her 80's make up, that I actually don't see any parts of Lucy Ricardo until pics like this. Where she wears little make up, is photographed nicely and feels good about the evening. I did NO photoshopping to her eyes or nose or face or hair or anything, its all her. She's a little plumb, but I like plump older Lucy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikidiki Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I was thinking thee exact same thing. Some times I ask my friends, does this look like Lucy Ricardo? Sometimes, I get so use to seeing her in her 80's make up, that I actually don't see any parts of Lucy Ricardo until pics like this. Where she wears little make up, is photographed nicely and feels good about the evening. I did NO photoshopping to her eyes or nose or face or hair or anything, its all her. She's a little plumb, but I like plump older Lucy. Exactly! Do you know what year this was taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySanJoaquin Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I was thinking thee exact same thing. Some times I ask my friends, does this look like Lucy Ricardo? Sometimes, I get so use to seeing her in her 80's make up, that I actually don't see any parts of Lucy Ricardo until pics like this. Where she wears little make up, is photographed nicely and feels good about the evening. I did NO photoshopping to her eyes or nose or face or hair or anything, its all her. She's a little plumb, but I like plump older Lucy. Ah, but that's not quite so: she IS wearing full makeup, including her eyelashes, which always makes a HUGE difference in how "aged' she looks --- go back and even look at pics from the 40s when she met Desi -- when not wearing the eyelashes, she looks a good ten years older! The biggest difference in this shot is she's fully made up but since she probably wasn't going before TV cameras, isn't wearing the straps & wig combo which, by this as evidence ("exhibit A", if you will ) at this point while I wouldn't say pointless....didn't provide quite the effect desired as it did in the early 60s. Regardless....BEAUTIFUL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Maybe you all had something when you mentioned those eyes! I've never seen Lucy's eyes this vibrant I think they caught a flash, but beautiful they yet are!! Make up or no make up, she looks terrific here. And loads more NATURAL than usual at this time of her life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I love the later more natural picture of Lucy that makes her look ten years younger. Of course, you can see her happy smile and that makes her look better too. Sometimes in the 80 she isn't photographed well probably because she is sad where her career is. At the Oscars though Lucy would look great after the show because of the love the fans showed her in that standing ovation. Lucy was human and wanted approval not just for the past but also the present. She never looked fully confortable on the award shows in the 1980s and I think that is because she didn't want to be treated as a past legend but a present actress. I think Lucy looked her best in the mid 1960s. She looked like in her late thirities/early fourties when she was really in her fifties. I think she aged the most during Here's Lucy and then gradually changed after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikidiki Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I love the later more natural picture of Lucy that makes her look ten years younger. Of course, you can see her happy smile and that makes her look better too. Sometimes in the 80 she isn't photographed well probably because she is sad where her career is. At the Oscars though Lucy would look great after the show because of the love the fans showed her in that standing ovation. Lucy was human and wanted approval not just for the past but also the present. She never looked fully confortable on the award shows in the 1980s and I think that is because she didn't want to be treated as a past legend but a present actress. I think Lucy looked her best in the mid 1960s. She looked like in her late thirities/early fourties when she was really in her fifties. I think she aged the most during Here's Lucy and then gradually changed after that. I completely agree Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I love the later more natural picture of Lucy that makes her look ten years younger. Of course, you can see her happy smile and that makes her look better too. Sometimes in the 80 she isn't photographed well probably because she is sad where her career is. At the Oscars though Lucy would look great after the show because of the love the fans showed her in that standing ovation. Lucy was human and wanted approval not just for the past but also the present. She never looked fully confortable on the award shows in the 1980s and I think that is because she didn't want to be treated as a past legend but a present actress. I think Lucy looked her best in the mid 1960s. She looked like in her late thirities/early fourties when she was really in her fifties. I think she aged the most during Here's Lucy and then gradually changed after that. Yeah she changed after that, she got older. Perfectly normal and always harder for attractive people to see their looks desert them, then she had tobacco and the California sun and hot lights on studio lots damaging her skin also. Not to mention two tons of make up a month. The strap, lift conconction needed a back up CRANE at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikidiki Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yeah she changed after that, she got older. Perfectly normal and always harder for attractive people to see their looks desert them, then she had tobacco and the California sun and hot lights on studio lots damaging her skin also. Not to mention two tons of make up a month. The strap, lift conconction needed a back up CRANE at this point. I don't agree on the makeup part, I think it was just her poor skin in general, there are lots of actresses that have worn the same amount of makeup Lucy did and have perfect skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C L A U D E Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I don't agree on the makeup part, I think it was just her poor skin in general, there are lots of actresses that have worn the same amount of makeup Lucy did and have perfect skin. Nope, you dunno, her eye lids folded over from the tons of make up over the decades, it's been written about, this was a kid who couldn't wait to put on make up and then went into show business where make up fixes every flaw and then she tried to preserve her looks through the effects of too much make up for decade after decade. Lee or Jim did mention though that her skin looked like peahes and cream when she did not have make up on, but we've all seen the pictures, close up, wrinkles everywhere, there was this one picture of her by the pool with the kids where she's squinting into the camera because of the sun and my best friend used to kid me about her LOOKS even way back then. I think the problem was her stubbornness in wanting to sometimes do the make up herself and always doing everything the same way regardless if it was flattering or not. But the experts got it wrong too sometimes, look at her in that BLACKGLAMA fur photo shoot where you can't even be sure it's HER. As for other actresses, most of them made the same mistakes, too much stuff put on with a trowel, look at Ann Miller, Bette Davis, Ann had her own LOOK but overdid it a bit and Bette well, nothing could be done for her at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.