U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2018, 12:11 AM
 
1,327 posts, read 781,532 times
Reputation: 3254

Advertisements

She is pretty but she does look her age when all the special lighting, airbrushing, etc is taken away.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2018, 12:13 AM
 
5,464 posts, read 2,924,398 times
Reputation: 24527
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
That's nice and good for her. I can't help but wonder what the real Jane Seymour looks like. I mean the Jane Seymour without the surgeries, implants, makeup and all the rest that's artificial.
Exactly--along with the air brushing and photo touch ups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 03:20 AM
 
11,985 posts, read 5,122,573 times
Reputation: 18734
Quote:
Originally Posted by droc31 View Post
Right on matisse12. She's as naturally beautiful now as back in 1979 when she starred opposite Christopher Reeve in "Somewhere In Time."
I agree with you that she is a natural beauty and I've been a fan of hers since I saw the movie you mentioned back in 1979.
That doesn't mean she doesn't have a lot of help now and has for many years in looking ageless on camera. And I do wonder what she would really look like now as a real person, without all the artificial enhancements. If she had never been an actress with all the benefits that brings, I doubt she would be 70 and looking like 36. You probably would never recognize her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 03:30 AM
 
71,561 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49156
guess we will have to keep abreast of this when it comes out .

[mod note - fixed that for ya]

Last edited by VTsnowbird; 02-25-2018 at 06:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 03:33 AM
 
5,426 posts, read 3,449,470 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
I agree with you that she is a natural beauty and I've been a fan of hers since I saw the movie you mentioned back in 1979.
That doesn't mean she doesn't have a lot of help now and has for many years in looking ageless on camera. And I do wonder what she would really look like now as a real person, without all the artificial enhancements. If she had never been an actress with all the benefits that brings, I doubt she would be 70 and looking like 36. You probably would never recognize her.
you're strange, and you don't know what you're talking about. The main thing she did is stay very thin her entire life. Staying thin is one big key. And she had an abundance of natural beauty to begin with.

Even though the Playboy pics were taken using filters and her hair covers her wrinkles in those pics, there are many public appearances in person where there are no filters, and she looks lovely....through the decades and now.

you and your 'artificial enhancement' obsession is off-base for Jane Seymour.

even if she has breast implants, they are very small, and no big deal at all. They are not even noticeable.

you even criticized her for wearing make-up! absurdity.

Last edited by matisse12; 02-24-2018 at 04:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 03:36 AM
 
11,985 posts, read 5,122,573 times
Reputation: 18734
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
you're strange, and you don't know what you're talking about. The main thing she did is stay very thin her entire life. Staying thin is one big key. And her natural beauty through the decades is her own.

you and your 'artificial enhancement' obsession is off-base for Jane Seymour.
You're even more strange if you can't admit that what you see is Jane Seymour the actress, not the real Jane Seymour at 67. You're in denial but whatever makes you happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 05:37 AM
 
6,880 posts, read 7,281,254 times
Reputation: 9786
Seymour looks OK I guess. But she doesn't look 36, or even 56 -- unless you've been down some bad road.

There are plenty of women her age who look just as good if not better -- WITHOUT the "help" she's had. So while she looks good, I'm not that excited about it and gushing all over her. I don't think she's that unique. She's pretty -- even gorgeous to some. But so are millions of other women around the world.

Now, if we're also commenting on the fact that she's in Playboy at her age. OK.
I guess they offered and she said yes -- and of course got paid for it.
IF the magazine had NOT enhanced her photos I'd be more impressed with Playboy. Because at least it might have shown editors really were trying to make a statement about beauty at any age.

But the magazine didn't do that. It gave mouth service to it. And so it's really just a publicity opportunity and business as usual.
No altruism and nobel causes in the picture at all. Just business.

Last edited by selhars; 02-24-2018 at 05:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 06:30 AM
 
Location: equator
3,436 posts, read 1,532,968 times
Reputation: 8538
None of those pictures are even "revealing"---many of us could pass in those covered-up poses. With all the filtering and air-brushing.


But I am glad older women are being featured, however it's done. Always been a fan of hers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 06:36 AM
mlb
 
Location: North Monterey County
3,179 posts, read 2,856,112 times
Reputation: 4876
That is not the natural hair coloring of a 67 year old.

Just sayin'.

I want to see a pic of her with her uncolored hair and no makeup.

No photoshop, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
1,362 posts, read 767,246 times
Reputation: 2428
Please don't let any one of the Kardashians see this. They'll never go away !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top