I actually wished she…
-
terraplane — 13 years ago(January 03, 2013 01:16 AM)
"Confused, much?" is not a coherent, grammatically correct statement.
It is, however, as idiotic as your original musings in regard to the shattering of your illusions by a movie.
My comment that Julie Andrews is an actress, a woman and a human being was made in the context of your rather strange remark that she was somehow a paragon of primness in your imagination. If you don't understand what context is, I suggest you look it up, along with the name of a phsyciatrist who can help you with your delusions.
Understand now? -
davidwile — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 06:30 PM)
Hey Scott,
I'm still with you on the idea of Julie Andrews showing her breasts. It simply reminds me of seeing your mother, your sister, or a Nun from your school days doing the same thing. You may have a real good looking mother, sister, and even a good looking Nun in your past, but do you really want to see them naked? To each his own, but that is not for me. It's not about whether or not the person is attractive; it's about who the person is. It's about modesty, not titillation.
Simply put, there are some people who I would rather not see in the nude, and I would submit that most guys would tend to not want to see their mother nude, nor their sister, nor a Nun they had in school.
When Terraplane suggests that someone needs "psychiatric help" simply because that person chooses to be discriminating in who or what he finds sexually stimulating, it simply does not make sense. Seeing Julie Andrews nude may be a pleasant experience for Terraplane, and I would not suggest there is anything wrong with that. By the same token, I see no reason why he should find fault with someone who does not share his sentiments about Julie Andrews' nude scene.
With UK in your screen name, are you by any chance from the UK?
Best wishes,
Dave Wile -
davidwile — 13 years ago(February 09, 2013 07:46 PM)
Hey Scott,
Please allow me to take a crack at being somewhat pedantic in making a comment on what Terraplane noted. According to Terraplane, ""Confused, much?" is not a coherent, grammatically correct statement." Well, I think Terraplane was missing the barn by about 12 yards there.
While I am not positive whether your "Confused, much?" is actually grammatically correct, I am absolutely certain that it is actually quite coherent in that the meaning of your words was clearly understandable. Perhaps if you might have written "Confused much?" instead of "Confused, much?" it might have been more grammatically correct. However, I was not an English major, so I am not really sure about that. One does not need to be an English major to know that written either way, your phrase was easily coherent for anyone for whome English is their mother tongue.
I suppose some folks may suggest that since you are from the UK and I am from the USA, that we actually do not share the same mother tongue. Well, I wouldn't waste my time in arguement of same. I would simply point out that it seems to me that we have been conversing on this thread for some time, and we have been able to communicate our thoughts and ideas between us rather well. I suspect if I ever visited the UK I might have some problems understanding the spoken word at times, but I am pretty sure I would be able to muddle my way across your land and enjoy doing so. Then again, I find I have trouble at times understanding the spoken word of some folks right here at home - including my children and grandchildren.
It certainly has been pleasant conversing with you on this thread.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile -
catcherbloq — 12 years ago(September 06, 2013 11:03 PM)
The whole film was a satire on the insanity of Hollywood, and I always took this to be a play on just how much hoopla is made over something that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They're just boobs for chrissake. It's amazing how the only people who could and are offended by it are the same ones who ascribe to it meaning that really isn't there.
Please don't feed the trolls.
-
gamerboy-955-685002 — 11 years ago(August 12, 2014 09:45 PM)
Yes, This thread was a 1 year ago, so actually come on people if somemody was an actress and a human being is it necessary to expose tits? come on? everybody, we all have childhood which has been ruined, and as you see, Julie Andrews did this long strip journey to her
last
blake edwards' movie, sob where she gets topless
the only good thing from blake Edwards is the pink panther -
EmmaPopell — 9 years ago(April 11, 2016 08:46 PM)
In real life, Scott uk88, Julie Andrews had the mouth of a sailor. Her screen persona: Good, Nice, Harmless was the opposite of her real life personality, except for the nice part. From what I know, she had quite the potty-mouth and was very apt to use it on all occasions. Makes me like her even better, knowing this.Kind of hard to keep living up to the Mary Poppins image, I would imagine! lol.
-
Gadare — 9 years ago(July 07, 2016 07:09 AM)
She made use of her potty mouth in her stage show. Not to any large extent, but to show that she was capable of such. She was an excellent live performer.
I slept with you and you're in love with my husband. What the hell am I supposed to do with that? -
Gadare — 9 years ago(July 07, 2016 07:15 AM)
For the first several times I saw the film, I thought the boobies were fake. Watching it again, they seemed to be of Julie origin.
My bewilderment about the scene is that her revealing is decidedly unsexy. It's like she's using them as a cross to fend off a vampire. I know that whole sequence is supposed to be decadent, but it also very repellent. You'd think that to show decadence, you'd want to have images and mood that would entice the viewer into being drawn to such acts, when they might not have ever considered it. The action is as removed and uninvolving as that in "Eyes Wide Shut". Yes, we see the action, but no passion or urgency.
I slept with you and you're in love with my husband. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?